It damned well was a coup: The administration is deliberately ignoring the law

[cali]

the denials are contemptible; both weak and dishonest. As someone said, you can call it a ham sandwich if you want,
It's almost laughable in a sick way. You may like that Morsi was overthrown, but it's still a coup.


al-Sissi is a classic strong man and he's running the country, not his handpicked puppet Mansour.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014548367#post14

The White House spokesman said: "We're not say it was a coup, and we're not saying it wasn't a coup".


Obama Ignores U.S. Law to Ignore Egypt’s Coup
By Noah Feldman Jul 26, 2013 5:15 PM ET

Heard the one about the law that says the U.S. must cut aid to a country that has had a coup? Apparently the Barack Obama administration has: Its lawyers have reportedly told the president he can ignore the law simply by not asking whether Egypt has had a coup.

The joke would be funny if it weren’t so outrageous -- and such an affront to the rule of law in Washington, to say nothing of Cairo.

Many laws are complicated, but Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act isn’t. It reads: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.”

In other words, money spent to aid a foreign country such as Egypt can’t be spent if there has been a coup. There is no loophole in this language.

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/obama-ignores-u-s-law-to-ignore-egypt-s-coup.html

Friday’s U.S. State Department daily press briefing may have provided more fodder for another The Daily Show segment as spokeswoman Jen Psaki bore the brunt of the criticism of the Obama administration’s announcement on Thursday that it won’t determine whether a coup occurred in Egypt earlier this month.

For more than 30 minutes the State Department press corps aggressively questioned Psaki about the decision. Veteran Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee compared the administration’s position to the character Sergeant Schulz from the 1960?s show “Hogan’s Heroes,” known for saying “I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.”

Psaki, who was not alive when Hogan’s Heroes was on the air, said she didn’t quite get the reference, so Lee spelled it out more bluntly.

“It took 3 1/2 weeks to come up with a decision that you’re going to ignore the law?” he asked.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/reporters-grill-state-dept-on-egypt-coup-decision-punt/

Senator Patrick Leahy: ‘Our law is clear,’ U.S. must cut off aid to Egypt

<snip>

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/03/senator-patrick-leahy-our-law-is-clear-u-s-must-cut-off-aid-to-egypt/

Even if the purported reason for the White House ignoring the law is accurate- that aid must continue to flow to ensure stability- ignoring the law is reprehensible. But there's reason to doubt that that's an accurate take, not to mention that there are other less lofty reasons that could account for the administrations determination to continue MILITARY aid to Egypt. (Under the law, humanitarian aid is allowed). The $1.5 billion is aid is a boon to certain corporations. A big one.

Now the military has charged Morsi with a raft of charges- some of them verging on the ludicrous and is slaughtering his Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Over 70 have been killed since yesterday.

What we're seeing is NOT democracy. It's not the way to get to democracy. It's brutal military rule and repression.

All the parsing in the world won't change that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. "Prosecutorial discretion" or some such.

It worked for immigrant deportations and was tolerated for the employer mandate. Heck, it doesn't even have the messy paperwork of a signing statement -- just ignore any law without so much as a public statement.

I can't wait for the next GOP presidency so we can get back to our principles.

[cali]

2. No. As Feldman points out there is no wriggle room in the law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I agree with Feldman but --

I haven't seen wriggle room in the employer mandate either, and as much as I'm pro-immigration I wonder how much prosecutorial discretion is there as well.

I have a sense of foreboding doom that one day in the not-too-distant future a Republican administration will exercise its discretion on something along the lines of not prosecuting some military command where sexual harassment was pervasive and bordering on rape, thus driving women out of the military. Or perhaps it will be a refusal to prosecute states trampling abortion rights or other civil liberties.

Sadly, this is not new with the President and I believe it is a precedent that will haunt Progressives. The Republicans will gleffully throw this back into our face in the worst way on subjects that will plague us for generations, not just out of their convenience or spite but with strategic malice.

We should fear this.

[alc]

9. the next GOP president will love the precedents

not that Obama's done anything that hasn't been done before, but much of it has been much more visible. The next GOP pres will no doubt cite Obama frequently when he decides to ignore or delay laws. He/she can gut Obamacare with delays and waivers. How can anyone complain about delays and waivers since they've been pretty routine from the guy the law is nicknamed after?

And it'll be all sorts of fun if we get dem-majority congress in 2014 that passes a law to remove the ss tax cap in 2017. How would ignoring that date be any different than ignoring the employer mandate date?

[IDemo]

3. I'm sure Someone will be along shortly

to show how little DU knows of the intricacies of legal interpretation or of the definition of 'coup'.

Too early for popcorn, maybe some cinnamon toast..

[Coyotl]

5. Obey the laws or suffer the consequences!

That would be grounds for impeachment. I'm sure the Republican House will have no trouble with passing that one if Obama openly defies the law..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Laws are for suckers!

[ceonupe]

7. With all due respect

U act like the us really cares. Our government just wants the government that is most agreeable to our needs and corporate desires and will keep the trade routes open. That's it.

We support Saudi Arabia, we support other oppressive countries with no democratic process. We just want the money screw the "theater" of elections

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. keeping Egypt on board with the Western/Gulf State Alliance and removing the Egyptian deterrence from

the greater Arab-Israeli conflict has been the bipartisan consensus since Camp David I during the Carter years. When push comes to shove both parties and regardless who is President of the United States and who is President of Egypt - this policy is so pivotal to American policy and American alliances in the Middle East - any President is going to follow it and both major parties will support it. Nothing to do with right or wrong or legal or illegal - simple Machiavellian reality of long term American policy in the Middle East.

[cali]

10. It has everything to do with legal and illegal.

There was a coup as has been pointed out by Feldman, Senator Leahy and many others. There is a clear cut law that states when a democratically elected government is overthrown by a military coup, no aid other than humanitarian aid is permissible.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. that may be - but it is not going to happen - no matter who is President

You may remember that when the democratically elected government in the Philippines led by President Joseph Estrada was overthrown in a coup in 2001 certainly against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Filipinos - there were no moves whatsoever to suspend aid. It depends on the real politics of the situation. That is just how it goes. In this case Egypt is so pivotal to American objectives - no President is going to suspend aid.

[The Magistrate]

14. A Couple Of Points In Supplement, Mr. Carpenter

It is best stated bluntly: we pay the Egyptian military not to engage in hostilities with Israel. That is the essence of our policy in the Near East, and the core of it. We are going to continue to do that. If that means a law will be ignored, it will be ignored.

Pretending anything but the military is or ever has been the government in Egypt since the ouster of Farouk is a ludicrous mis-reading of the situation. The military was not overthrown or set at naught in its rule when Mubarek was forced out; the military put him out. The military was not superseded when Morse took office; the military allowed this and he ruled on its sufferance, until they struck the curtains on his show. The fact is there has been no change in government in Egypt; it is in the same hands it always has been.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. I agree 100% with what you said. I was only trying to say it less bluntly

[cali]

25. I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean it's good policy and it doesn't

change that the administration is ignoring the law anymore than it changes that corporate interests are involved in military aid.

[The Magistrate]

28. You Prefer Open Hostilities, Ma'am, On The Sinai Border?

"When you sign a contract, you have to keep up the payments."

[cali]

30. I would suggest that it's speculation that open hostilities would

break out on the Sinai border, dear sir. It may be speculation rooted in some historical fact, but still, it's speculation.

[The Magistrate]

62. Past Performance, Ma'am, Is The Best Predictor Of Future Behavior

It ought to tell you something that both a leading 'Team Palestine' fellow like my friend Mr. Carpenter, and a leading 'Team Israel' fellow like myself, display some overlap in our view of this matter.

The long-standing ties between the Brotherhood and resistance to Israel in Gaza suggest the possibility, even, that the Egyptian military was actually living up to the bargain it made more than three decades ago by evicting Mr. Morsi, and doing exactly what it was paid to do, and the thing which was the true desire of the U.S. government --- whatever pious noises may be being made here and there by some officials in the aftermath.

"Don't watch the mouth --- watch the hands."

[cali]

66. Senator Leahy is no fool and he disagrees.

As you may be aware, he is chair of the subcommittee on foreign aid. He is not ignorant of either history or realpolitik.

And I'd guess that his expertise exceed both yours and Doug's.

[The Magistrate]

67. That, Ma'am, Falls Under the Heading Of 'Pious Noise'

It is 'secret supplications of the heart' which command attention....

[msanthrope]

69. A thorough schooling from both sides of the I/P debate should tell you something.

Please proceed, cali.

[hughee99]

59. EXACTLY, like if the president wasn't allowed to send money to the Contras, but decided

it's in our long term interests to send them money, it's okay for him to ignore the law, right?

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Middle East knows that it would be

extremely dangerous to cancel aid. This is not comparable to the contra situation. If one wants to increase the likelihood of war in the Middle East then canceling aid makes perfect sense. There is no President no matter what their political leanings who would do something so dangerous

[hughee99]

74. Following the law is one option, changing the law is another. Ignoring it is not.

It shouldn't be a problem to change the law if it's such a no-brainer.

[randome]

12. I think we can safely leave foreign policy to those whose responsibility it is to conduct it.

Second-guessing every move by the Administration is a foolish task.

I can understand wondering aloud why they don't want to call this a coup but to think that anyone on DU has more foreign policy experience to dictate what they should be doing seems a waste of time.

I'll throw out a suggestion. Maybe they have information that cutting off money to Egypt would worsen the situation. There. That wasn't so bad, was it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

19. There's nothing wrong with speculating. I just did it myself.

But I take issue with the idea that the Administration MUST do something when there are so many details we don't know. Why don't you offer your own speculation instead of simply saying he's doing it all wrong?

Of course now that the Egyptian military has killed a number of protesters, I'm betting the hope that this could be resolved peacefully has evaporated and we'll soon hear the designation of 'coup' being used.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

21. no need for speculation. The administration is ignoring a clear law

but all speculate on this: The admin will NOT designate it a coup. The military aid to al-Sissi will continue.

[randome]

58. That's not speculation. It's a prediction.

Why do you think Obama wants to continue military aid to Egypt? Aren't you the least bit curious?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[The Straight Story]

17. Hmmm, can't agree with you on that

Long before the .com bubble burst a lot of sensible folks saw it coming. Same with the big financial crisis. Same with the debacle of the war in iraq. Same with a host of other things where the govt later went 'ooops' and we were all facepalming.

Administrations tend not to listen as they are in a bubble (a dc and wealthy people first one).

US not handing them the money and making the situation worse? That is our money, they are responsible for their actions, and if you are spending our money the least you could do is explain why.

Government wants people to think in a way that they always know more so trust us when we do something and don't ask us questions, even when they turn our wrong time and time again.

People talk about things online, those things tend to get noticed and pick up by journalists who then ask the tough questions (and if you don't think online discussions get noticed just google around the news for places like reddit).

You may not want to question your government and it's actions, that's fine. Do as you wish, trust who you will.

[randome]

20. I have no problem at all with questioning, offering suggestions, even disagreeing.

But to say that Obama MUST do this thing when the conduct of foreign policy is his sole discretion seems unhelpful.

But as I pointed out above, now that the Egyptian military has murdered some protesters, I think the situation regarding foreign policy will quickly change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[IDemo]

18. The definition of "coup", or "coup d'état" is unambiguous

A sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

A sudden violent or illegal seizure of government.

Policy decisions, whether domestic or foreign, do not supply the Executive with the authority to override or ignore a law unless with the claim that it is an unconstitutional infringement of the president's authority. No such claim has been made here, simply a shoulder shrug at whether what happened in Egypt was actually a coup. Without question it was, regardless of how favored the parties behind it may be or the desirability of maintaining relations with the country involved.

[randome]

22. Actually, passing a law to tie the President's hands is likely unconstitutional.

Since the conduct of foreign policy is at his discretion.

But if Congress doesn't care, they must think the same as I do: that the President should make decisions based on the evidence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

23. lol. at least you stuck the word "likely" in there.

got any links to back up that silly claim? Congress controls the purse strings. That includes foreign aid. duh.

[randome]

29. I'm not concerned about the money aspect.

But I was wrong to claim that foreign policy is solely at the President's discretion. It's a muddle because our Founders made it a muddle.

http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/constitutional_powers.html

Foreign Affairs

The Constitution grants few foreign affairs powers to the president. Although it gives the president authority to make treaties and appoint ambassadors, it allots Congress a range of powers in the area that are at least equal to those of the president. Indeed, the constitutional division of foreign affairs power has been described as “an invitation to struggle.”

Nevertheless, presidents in recent decades have won interbranch struggles for primacy in foreign relations. Although Congress sometimes can block or modify presidential foreign policy initiatives, the president has dominated the formulation and initiation of foreign policy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[IDemo]

26. Utterly wrong

If we applied your logic to each governmental entity large and small, it would be open game for governors and administrators to pursue their own ideologies without restraint of pesky laws.

Having or exercising discretion means doing so within the limits specified by the law.

[randome]

31. I meant in the conduct of foreign policy. But as I linked above, that 'conduct'...

...is deliberately muddled.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

55. The way that law is written it is most certainly not

whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup d'etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role:

I know you guys like for things to be decided without debate and the words interpreted as you would have done so. Legal matters do not work that way.

[woo me with science]

24. ...

[IDemo]

27. LOL

[randome]

32. Not at all what I am saying.

I'm saying that seeing things from our electronic bubble here at DU means we aren't privy to all the things that go into these decisions.

Obama is a very careful, nuanced man when it comes to foreign policy. I would bet he knows what he's doing.

Of course now that Egypt has murdered some protesters, I think the situation will change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

38. pot calling kettle black

cali is not objective about President Obama, so we are right to look further into it.

Of course she would say he is "breaking the law."

But before making that judgment, we should find that law and know what it says and at least consider the Administration's explanation of how it interprets it.

[morningfog]

75. Second guessing nothing is even more foolish.

You are all too eager to abdicate your role in a democracy.

[IDemo]

13. Article II Section 3 of the Constitution

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I'm quite certain that he has a copy of this document in his personal library, but maybe a quick re-read would help his understanding of it.

[bhikkhu]

33. I would be in favor of whatever approach works best

...if the letter of our law says we have to take an approach which would encourage sectarian civil war in Egypt, then what good is the letter of the law? We should know all too well what sectarian civil war looks like. In the short-term, it looks like Iraq. In the long-term, it looks like Afghanistan.

If there is a practical way to help the people in Egypt avoid that, that's what I would be in favor of.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

34. Besides what TheMagistrate pointed out above,

I would simply point out that what everyone wants is some stability, not for some horrid dictatorial reason, but so that the people can eat. Really, just get a square meal.
Since the Mubarak toppling, Egyptian tourism has gone bye-bye. This is a huge deal for their economy, and explains a lot of the instability there. But we've now reached the point where instability will breed more, because tourism isn't going to come back given what's going on there.
A story on this below. The first paragraph says it all:

LUXOR, Egypt — In Luxor, the hotels are empty. Dozens of luxury cruise liners are docked on the banks of the Nile. Every cab driver and every restaurant owner in this city in Upper Egypt, some 400 miles south of Cairo, bemoans the crippling loss of tourism.

Death on the Nile

The Central Bank had been buying food for the country with dollars it had saved up. That's done. Egypt is in dire straits.
The people hit the streets in massive protest against Morsi (does anyone remember this anymore?) partially spurred on by frustration with the crumbling economy.
The army became alarmed when he cut ties with Syria and called for a jihad against Assad. The last thing they want is an influx of people at the end of such an intervention trained in fighting and radicalized by whatever they would have wound up doing in Syria.
Summary: the country is evenly divided between pro and anti-MB forces. Obama needs to do what's in the interests of the US. Engaging in a form of intervention by cutting off aid would be seriously counterproductive, not least because it would cut off more nuanced reactions like the one announced today, where the USG is holding back on delivery of some new fighters to express displeasure with how the army is handling this so far.

[cali]

35. the admin is still ignoring the clearly written law

and who is "everyone"?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

37. Did you even read the linked story?

The people are in a serious uproar all over the place. It's a mess. Either/or solutions don't cut it.
As for "everyone", the folks at the top: the army, the Central Bank, you name it. Without stability, no one is going to eat. You know, what keeps them alive? Seriously. It really is that bad.

[cali]

52. Ah, so Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate subcommittee on foreign aid

and 3rd in line to the Presidency as well as chair of Judiciary and in the Senate for 37 years, isn't at the top. gotcha. He's not the only Senator who believes cutting off aid is the right thing to do.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/03/senator-patrick-leahy-our-law-is-clear-u-s-must-cut-off-aid-to-egypt/

And Noah Feldman couldn't possibly know what he's talking about.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

61. I defined "everyone" as the folks in charge in Egypt.

Go back and read my response. It said "the army, the Central Bank, the people at the top."
Patrick Leahy is a US Senator. Obviously, I wasn't referencing him.
As for this law, it's still a matter of opinion. Remember, the army took over only after massive street demonstrations and an organized mass movement against Morsi. Everyone has now conveniently forgotten this, it seems. It did take place, though. That calls for a more nuanced response, which the Admin is in the process of giving. Cutting off all aid would be seen as being pro-MB, and so would accomplish precisely nothing.
The world rarely conforms to an either/or scenario.

[MineralMan]

71. Some people who ignore the clearly written law, like one Mr. Snowden,

are called heroes here on DU by some. Others, like the President of the United States, are attacked by some.

In the first place, the laws having to do with our foreign relations are not at all simple, and are not easily interpreted by people not involved in the process. However laws prohibiting releasing classified information to foreign governments are quite simple.

You are not really opposed to lawbreakers. That is clear. You are opposed to President Obama. That is also clear.

There is a word for following principles or laws you like but not ones you do not like. I just can't think of it just now...

[randome]

73. Whoopsie!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[eissa]

78. So well said

The issue is much more nuanced than simply "the military overthrew the government." The military did not act unilaterally, they did so at the behest of the people. Unlike the US, Egypt's president is not CiC, they answer to the people. In this case, the vast majority of people took to the streets to reclaim their revolution. Those saying they simply should have waited until the next election don't seem to understand the power grabs Morsi and the MB were engaging in. They were taking Egypt down the same path as Iran -- elections are good ONCE; thereafter, the imams ensure that they remain in power. Punishing the Egyptian people for taking back control of their country by cutting off aid seems a little short-sighted.

[dipsydoodle]

40. The decline in tourism was as a result of the revolution itself.

Not because of Morsi. With the military now in command it will likely bottom complelely.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

44. I did say that if you look at what I wrote,

but his policies did nothing to bring it back. It should have been one of his top priorities. People have to eat, first.

[dipsydoodle]

51. Thats easier said than done.

Tunisia hasn't picked up either despite the fact its far more stable there than Egypt.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

65. True, they have their own problems.

Fortunately for them their economy isn't as dependent on tourism. It's always been kinda OK, as north African economies go. I expect they'll muddle through.

[treestar]

57. And the OP and all others would be saying the President failing to help them

showed how terrible he was.

[treestar]

36. I'd like to see what that law says

How it defines a coup.

The President's DU detractors have no problem redefining words. Words with legal meaning can be up for interpretation.

[IDemo]

42. Provisions Relevant To The Situation In Egypt In The FY12

Provisions Relevant To The Situation In Egypt In The FY12 State Department And Foreign Operations Appropriations Law

Coups d'Etat

Sec. 7008. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup d'etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes: Provided further, That funds made available pursuant to the previous provisos shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

Near East

Sec. 7041. (a) Egypt-

(1)(A) None of the funds appropriated under titles III and IV of this Act and in prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs may be made available for assistance for the central Government of Egypt unless the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that such government is meeting its obligations under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty*.

and more - http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/provisions-relevant-to-the-situation-in-egypt-in-the-fy12-state-department-and-foreign-operations-appropriations-law_--

* has this happened? I don't believe so, yet.

[treestar]

50. "in which the military plays a decisive role"

lawyers can easily argue both sides of that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

77. Yeah, because the army didn't kidnap the president and overthrow the government. Right?

The law is clear. It's not ambiguous.

[cali]

45. fine.

Coups d'Etat
Sec. 7008. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree or, after the date of enactment of this Act, a coup d'etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role:

Provided,

That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office:

Provided further,

That the provisions of this section shall not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes:

Provided further,

That funds made available pursuant to the previous provisos shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

There is no Presidential waiver or national security waiver for this law. If the President wants to continue US aid to Egypt in spite of the coup, he must obtain a specific Congressional waiver for this purpose. [3] Senators Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, and John McCain have called for suspending US aid, as the law requires. [4]

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=13770

[cali]

47. Perhaps you'd prefer Pat Leahy's website- you know that guy that's chair

of the subcommittee on foreign aid as well as chair of the JC, not to mention third in line to the Presidency, and an early supporter of the President's.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/provisions-relevant-to-the-situation-in-egypt-in-the-fy12-state-department-and-foreign-operations-appropriations-law_--

[treestar]

54. So how is the administration interpreting it?

God forbid you should consider both sides of any question involving the actions of President Obama's Administration.

[cali]

56. they aren't. I have considered both sides and it's in the Op how they're considering it

Are you really incapable of actually doing some research on your own? I shouldn't have to spoon feed you. it's pathetic.

try google and stop expecting me to do YOUR work for you.

[treestar]

60. So my work is to figure out how I can agree with you?

Rather than you having to persuade anyone? It's our work to find out why you are right.

So the Administration has come out and said, "we are deliberately ignoring this law." They've admitted that. Have they explained why they feel such a thing is necessary?

[cali]

63. No. and of course I never said anything remotely like that. try being honest.

You asked me how the admin was interpreting this law and accused me of ignoring their side. I told YOU that if you want to know how the admin is interpreting it to a) look in my op, and/or b) find out for yourself by googling.

If you don't feel competent to research it yourself, all you have to do is click on some of the links in the OP.

[treestar]

68. I just looked at all three of your links

The first is clearly opinion piece, has made up its mind and its headline is a declaration of conclusion.

It contains some speculation of the government's position and then seeks to argue against them.

The second link is the same.

The third gives Leahy's side of it.

So whether I've googled to find out the administration's position or not, it is clear you have made up your mind without hearing both sides, as expected.

The spokesperson is made fun of and talked to about a TV show, but her words are not related anywhere. These "reporters" report to us only their conclusions regarding what she said.

[JaneyVee]

39. I think it's a coup but think we shouldn't stop giving aid.

[cali]

41. How on earth do you reconcile that with the clear cut law

that forbids military aid pursuant to a coup?

[JaneyVee]

46. Democracy is messy, bloody, and confusing at first.

Look at our beginnings of democracy, which could also be considered a military coup against UK. If France or Spain cut off our funding we wouldn't be here today.

[cali]

48. that was not an answer, it was a cheap evasion.

ugh. I hope to hell I never engage in that kind of shite.

[JaneyVee]

53. Wasn't an evasion at all. I gave you my reasoning for why I personally believe

We should continue aid.

[IDemo]

43. I think I'm speeding, but I'm late for work n/t

[cali]

49. but but but democracy is messy and bloody, doncha know?

[Cali_Democrat]

64. cali, I really think you need a hug

[MineralMan]

70. Not really a coup. That would require that the military

not be in power at some point. That point has not been reached in Egypt in recent years. The military has controlled the Egyptian government for a long time. Morsi was allowed to serve as head of state by the military. The military removed him from that position. Now the military supports someone else. Democracy has not been established in that country.

In the meantime, the US has an interest in Egypt keeping its mitts off Israel. While they did delay shipment of some fighter planes to Egypt following what has occurred, it is not in the interest of our government to cut off Egypt from foreign aid at this time.

The military is, was, and will continue to be in charge of Egypt's government. That is a fact. It will remain a fact.

[morningfog]

76. There was a democratic election, however flawed it may have been.

The military facilitated that transition. This is a coup. And an increasingly bloody one at that. It has the potential, perhaps the likelihood, to turn into something much worse now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

79. Nice stretch, but aren't you getting sore from all the contorting?

That's some real hard-ass realpolitik you're putting out there.

The fact remains that the US law is unambiguous, and the Obama administration is choosing to ignore it.

Personally, I find this whole "we have to pay the Egyptians not to attack Israel" schtick a bit disingenuous. I think Israel itself could probably provide a reason or two (or 200) for the Egyptians not to attack them.

[99th_Monkey]

80. "We're not say it was a coup, and we're not saying it wasn't a coup". <-- Least Dishonest Lie

that the USA could come up with

[kelliekat44]

81. I agree with you Cali. We must approve of military coups. S.America, Pakistan, Africa? nt