Of course American history is rife with battles between the branches of government but the balance has always been maintained. While this may be just growing pains of becoming a mature society with democracy, separation of powers and rule of law this may also end up being a naked power grab by Morsi. Have you considered what things might be like in Egypt if Morsi's decrees actually hold?
I'd also point to Bush v. Gore for an example of the judiciary violating its' bounds quite spectacularly.
Glad you're amused. In your incessant quest to prove your knowledge through insult, I hope you do not forget how you first gained it. Seeing as how you are not (sadly) focusing on the issues again, I must bid you farewell again. Bye ATW, have a good time on the forums!
This is a horrible move by the govt. in Egypt. I'm glad that Egyptians are protesting this. The govt. should not be allowed to get away with this move towards dictatorship. During the recent uprising the people of Egypt spoke up against a dictatorship. Replacing an old dictatorship with a new one isn't an acceptable answer. It's best to stop them now before they become a full fledged dictatorship. I really hope something can be done to reverse the decision.
Yes I am quite familiar with Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, that was an overreach by the executive not the judiciary violating it's own bounds, but in case you haven't noticed the US still has habeas corpus. The Bush v. Gore ruling I would agree was a bad ruling and separation of powers doesn't mean there aren't bad decisions made. That said there has been no serious efforts since then to remove the independence of judiciary. Anyway I find this an odd argument is your point that it is a good thing to try to remove the independence of the judiciary? While the judicial branch isn't perfect it is a recipe for dictatorship to remove the independence of the judiciary.
I don't find that a particularly good thing. However, I find it refreshing that the debate is now about the powers of the executive vs the judiciary rather than the past where the judiciary was appointed ad hoc by Mubarak. http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/11/egypts_injudicious_judges One must also remember that in this conflict, the Mubarak-appointed courts arguably struck first. I view this as a bump and grind in a new democratic transition rather than the dire doom some would see it, and find it a sign of progress that protesters are allowed to run out and well, protest this, rather than be arbitrarily arrested. This is a balance of powers issue, which is somewhat refreshing for a regime that had always been unbalanced in power to Mubarak, an imbalance that arguably continues to this day thanks to the military and Mubarak-appointed judiciary. Now if Morsi suspends habeas corpus en masse, and starts holding/harming mass amounts of protesters arbitrarily, then I start really worrying.
Except that Morsi is trying to change that by essentially nullifying the judiciary. Considering he already controls the Legislature if he succeeds in terms of power he isn't going to be that much different than Mubarak. That might be too late to start worrying if Morsi is able to rule by decree.
Apparently there are a lot of Egyptians who don't agree with certain interns who got all their "knowledge" freshly from googling, but really don't know anything. 'Get out!' Egypt protesters demand downfall of Morsi regime Updated at 5:05 p.m. ET: Opposition protesters clashed with police in several Egyptian cities Friday after new Islamist President Mohammed Morsi awarded himself sweeping new powers. Police fired tear gas in an attempt to disperse tens of thousands of protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the center of anti-regime protests that ousted longtime U.S.-backed leader Hosni Mubarak in 2011. "The people want to bring down the regime," shouted protesters, echoing a chant used in the anti-Mubarak uprising. "Get out, Morsi," they chanted. State TV also said Morsi opponents set fire to Muslim Brotherhood offices in the Suez Canal cities of Suez, Port Said and Ismailia. Clashes also erupted between police and opposition protesters in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, the southern city of Assiut and in Giza, the sister city of the capital. In Alexandria, Morsi opponents hurled stones at Brotherhood supporters outside a mosque and stormed a nearby office of the group. However, Muslim Brotherhood backers gathered in front of the presidential palace in northern Cairo to support Morsi -- illustrating a widening gulf over Egypt’s future. Wide powers Buoyed by accolades from around the world for mediating a truce between Hamas and Israel, Morsi on Thursday ordered that an Islamist-dominated assembly writing the new constitution could not be dissolved by legal challenges. Other changes give Morsi power to take security measures to protect his position, which rights groups say are like new emergency laws. Morsi belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood until he ran for the presidency and still depends on the group for political support. On Friday, Morsi confirmed that he will move forward on his plans because he insisted they were for the good of the country. "I am for all Egyptians. I will not be biased against any son of Egypt,'' Morsi told the crowd outside the presidential palace, adding that he was working for social and economic stability and the rotation of power. "Opposition in Egypt does not worry me, but it has to be real and strong,'' he said in response to his critics. Morsi also said Friday that his government would pay $5,000 to the families of those who died in the protests to oust Mubarak and $3,333 to those who were injured. 'New pharaoh' The changes, announced late Thursday, prompted outrage among secularists and liberals. Critics accuse Egypt president of trying to become 'new pharaoh' with decree Mohammed ElBaradei, a prominent pro-democracy figure and former head of the U.N.'s nuclear agency, accused Morsi of declaring himself a "new pharaoh." "Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh," ElBaradei said on Twitter. "A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences." "Morsi a 'temporary' dictator','' was the headline in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. By ousting military chiefs, Egypt's Morsi shows he's a force to be reckoned with The U.S. State Department signaled its concern Friday over Morsi’s declarations. "One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution," said spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. "The current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt's international commitments." Nuland called for calm and for all parties in Egypt to resolve differences through "democratic dialogue." Meanwhile, the United Nations expressed serious concerns Friday about human rights and stability in Egypt. "We are very concerned about the possible huge ramifications of this declaration on human rights and the rule of law in Egypt," Rupert Colville, U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay's spokesman, told a news briefing at the United Nations in Geneva. "We also fear this could lead to a very volatile situation over the next few days, starting today in fact." Morsi's decree is also bound to worry Western allies, particularly the United States, a generous benefactor to Egypt's army. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...e-clash-as-morsi-defends-wide-new-powers?lite
ATW, let me start by saying I agree this is a horrible move by the Egyptian government. I think your comments here though, are grasping at straws in an attempt to criticize "Islamist" Morsi and Arab Spring. The situation before Morsi was that of a dictatorship that had no democratic institutions. At the very least, it is comparatively much better off. Your criticism of "Arab Spring sucks, it's not democratic" rings hollow when you consider the state of Egypt before. For what it's worth too, I'm watching NewsHour right now, and there are many, many, many protesters right now to the new measures.
Let's wait until that happens before we start saying this will be a Mubarak-like regime. Seeing as how the courts have repeatedly tried to rein in the executive and legislative branch without much cause (dissolving Parliament, for example) and seeing as how they're mostly Mubarak-appointed stooges--- ---I can understand the executive-judiciary pissing match. I deplore the excessive sledgehammer move by Morsi to address the situation, but rejoice that the Egyptian people can protest this on the streets freely, and want to emphasize that the mere fact this is an issue of contention that can be freely protested and debated in Egypt shows how far Egypt has come from one-man rule.
For one, there are protesters on the streets, and not a massive group of them being held indefinitely without just cause, violating international norms of habeas corpus. http://www.lepetitjuriste.fr/englis...ored-again-in-north-africa-s-latest-uprisings
Mursi is holding the process of agreeing a constitution hostage. If he doesn't like what's agreed, he has leverage. If it takes time, he has power. You should watch his speech. He viciously attacked his opposition. Security forces were protecting the Brotherhood. He made his speech to a crowd of Brotherhood followers and, elsewhere in Tahrir, arresed protestors and ordered that tear gas be fired. With his new powers, he is ordering the re-trial of Hosni Mubarak - who already got life in prison. Morsi wants to execute Mubarak. To say that he is not already using his new powers arbitrarily is hard to believe already. Not cool. Many people voted for the Brotherhood with the understanding that they would play by the rules. At best, this is an attempt by Morsi to overcome his own failings thus far at the expense of non-Brotherhood Egyptians. Right now, the future of Egypt is going to look exactly like it does in Morsi's dreams. That's not his job. US State department, meanwhile, confirms my suspicion that they had a heads up and have no objection to this behavior. I realized some time ago that the deal was "you can do whatever you want to Egyptians, as long as you keep the same promises Mubarak kept." I wish I believed that anything could stop what's happening. I hope they do stop it. But right now, if you think Egypt is on the road to a democracy in line with the rights of all Egyptians, then I think you are in for a big surprise. Just don't go blaming Muslims and Arabs and Egyptians for this as if it's what they wanted. This is the vision of one party - out of a group of parties willing to play by Tantawi (and hence Hillary's) rules. Imagine a wholly Republican American government that uses cute words to explain to non-Republicans that they will get some scraps of what they want too and that you should just "trust" them with power. Right.
I agree. It's bad. And I predicted this would happen - because of Mursi's ideological background. Rather ridiculous that the intern is even trying to talk about this from his mom's basement, clueless, but frantically googling, as always. I don't know - don't really think so. US state department objected to what's going on. Sadly, yes. I'm blaming the Muslim brotherhood, and I am blaming Egyptians for not being educated enough to realize what their vote would lead to. It was not that hard to figure out. The Muslim brotherhood is a terrorist breeding ground.
I'm actually typing it from your mom's basement Given your worldwide expertise, alleged degrees, and multiple screen-watching, I assume your words hold as much as weight as experts on the topic. Here's a rebuttal that goes along the same lines as I have been expanding upon. Bassam Haddad is Director of the Middle East Studies Program and teaches in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University, and is Visiting Professor at Georgetown University. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/7365/was-the-arab-spring-really-worth-it_the-fascinatin arguing. this is exactly who you are being right now, implicitly. It's sad really, because those same ideological blinders are what led Western forces to support terrible regimes in order to stifle that haunting Islamist threat instead of co-existing with the crazies a la Sarah Palin and the religious right. Ironically, this only made the Islamists stronger and more legitimate in the end, and even more prone to violence. I'd fervently hope for a liberal secular government for Egypt, but until those parties get their acts together, this is (at the moment) preferable to one-man autocrat rule. And I mean actual autocrat---seize people and put them in jail en masse and torture them kind of thing (hi Mubarak).
And this statement is based on...? Anytime law is brought up here in the D&D, you claim to have such a thorough legal background. Not once have you displayed it. Instead you choose to display your ignorance of the subject and resort to ad-hominem arguements. That is a statement based on your posting history.
It seems like you are personally offended that someone would call out one of your fellow Islamists - who is showing his true colors by developing into an ideologically motivated, ruthless dictator.
