I expect them to show restraint and not gun down people in the street.
The frustrating issue is that all the bloodshed was unnecessary. If the army hadn't waded in and removed an elected politician, who it has become apparent from the sheer number of demonstrators was actually popular with large numbers, all this could have been avoided. As it is, Egypt will probably become another Syria.
So, how would the concerns of the millions of demonstrators be addressed? Do you think it's fine for the elected to give himself unlimited law-making powers?
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
That's where having a well written constitution comes in, something with the ability to remove or impeach someone who abuses their powers.
The solution is not for the military to play kingmaker.
Who would impeach him if not the Army?
Morsi got himself elected through a democratic process and immediately dismantled or overrode that process. No motter how well written a constitution may be, it still requires someone to police and enforce it
Morsi got himself elected through a democratic process and immediately dismantled or overrode that process. No motter how well written a constitution may be, it still requires someone to police and enforce it
Wouldn't it be a matter for the courts or, at the very least, some sort of parliamentary scrutiny body? Morsi being impeached via a civilian legal process, given a hearing and then removed by a number of high-ranking judges, would probably have caused far less unrest than the army wading in and arresting half of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Wouldn't it be a matter for the courts or, at the very least, some sort of parliamentary scrutiny body? Morsi being impeached via a civilian legal process, given a hearing and then removed by a number of high-ranking judges, would probably have caused far less unrest than the army wading in and arresting half of the Muslim Brotherhood.
For that to have been possible, there would have needed to be some item in the constitution or other law via which Morsi could have been impeached. As I understand it (which could be wrong), the constitution was inadequate and Morsi took advantage, granting himself power to edict any law ... hence the need to draw up an amended constitution prior to starting the election process all over again.
For that to have been possible, there would have needed to be some item in the constitution or other law via which Morsi could have been impeached. As I understand it (which could be wrong), the constitution was inadequate and Morsi took advantage, granting himself power to edict any law ... hence the need to draw up an amended constitution prior to starting the election process all over again.
Yeah, I get that (in fact, I mentioned it myself a few pages back) but cod'ead seemed to be saying that, even with a well drafted constitution, it would be down to the army to remove/impeach the president.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Yeah, I get that (in fact, I mentioned it myself a few pages back) but cod'ead seemed to be saying that, even with a well drafted constitution, it would be down to the army to remove/impeach the president.
Didn't he also remove/replace the sitting judiciary too?
Given it was Egypt's very first stab at democracy, it's almost inevitable that there would be anomalies. But if the law was being redrawn in favour of one man/organisation, it still leaves the question: who would have the strangth and power to stand up to such abuses?
Yeah, I get that (in fact, I mentioned it myself a few pages back) but cod'ead seemed to be saying that, even with a well drafted constitution, it would be down to the army to remove/impeach the president.
Ah, apologies. With a properly-drafted constitution, yes, I agree it would be a judicial process ... but, I guess, always with the army as the ultimate back-up to ensure compliance with the judicial outcome.
Didn't he also remove/replace the sitting judiciary too?
Given it was Egypt's very first stab at democracy, it's almost inevitable that there would be anomalies. But if the law was being redrawn in favour of one man/organisation, it still leaves the question: who would have the strangth and power to stand up to such abuses?
I would suggest that the civilian police force should undertake the enforcement role. The army getting involved should be the very last resort.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 107 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...