US law requires that we cut aid to countries that experience a coup. Egypt, anyone?

[Comrade Grumpy]

According to a section of the Foreign Assistance Act, a law first enacted in 1961, the United States is required to suspend foreign aid to any country that suffers a military coup. The law, according to its text, “restricts assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.” So if the U.S. determines that there was a coup in Egypt, that would seem to require an end to its aid for the country.

What happened in Egypt today is the textbook definition of a military coup, even if it had popular support. The military has, with no authority but brute force, removed the duly elected head of state.

US foreign assistance to Egypt should be frozen, in accordance with US law.

Yes?

No?

[dipsydoodle]

1. Yes

for consistency.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It's more of a suggestion

Just ask oh Pinochet

[leveymg]

3. No problemo. The State Dept. will just characterize it as a "fast-track vote of no confidence."

Who cares if they don't elect their Presidents that way in Egypt.

If we do it for trade laws, why cant Egypt for a change of government?

[maddezmom]

4. It has been waived before but after reading Sen Leahy's comments not sure it will be this time...but

Who knows.

Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt., Chairman of the Budget Committee for the State Department and Foreign Assistance) on the Military Takeover in Egypt

BURLINGTON, Vt., July 3, 2013 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- "The Morsi government has been a great disappointment to the people of Egypt, and to all who wish Egypt a successful transition to responsive, representative government under the rule of law. He squandered an historic opportunity, preferring to govern by fiat rather than work with other political parties to do what is best for all Egyptians. Egypt's military leaders say they have no intent or desire to govern, and I hope they make good on their promise. In the meantime, our law is clear: U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree. As we work on the new budget, my committee also will review future aid to the Egyptian government as we wait for a clearer picture. As the world's oldest democracy, this is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that transfers of power should be by the ballot, not by force of arms."

[Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairs the budget committee for the State Department and foreign aid - the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations. He is the author of the new conditions on U.S. military aid to Egypt, enacted last year. Sec. Clinton and Sec. Kerry earlier used their authority to waive the Leahy conditions. To see the other provisions that relate to the situation in Egypt, in current law - the Fiscal Year 2012 State Department And Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which was handled by the Leahy-led panel -- go to THIS LINK on the Leahy website: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/provisions-relevant-to-the-situation-in-egypt-in-the-fy12-state-department-and-foreign-operations-appropriations-law_-- ]

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Leahy, what a bleeding heart!

"This is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that transfers of power should be by the ballot, not by force of arms."

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. So, when a senator proposes following the law, you denigrate him as a 'bleeding heart'

but you also contemptuously say "there's a convenient national security exemption". Be honest - is there any response that you wouldn't have criticised?

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. I guess I should have used the sarcasm thingie, but I thought it was evident.

Good try, though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. So you do actually welcome Leahy's stance, then? Good (nt)

[Duer 157099]

5. Laws? Who follows laws any more?

So quaint.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Tough call but I need to go with 'No"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'%C3%A9tat


^snip^


A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; plural: coups d'état), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence.






This was not done by a small group. It was a popular uprising backed up by the entire military. They also are not replacing it with another body but are instead holding elections so that the people may choose their leaders.

I agree that the question should be asked but I do think the answer here is no.

[David__77]

9. It's a coup - a total, 100% coup.

It may be great, or not, but it is a coup regardless.

All successful coups are backed up by more than a "small group," or they would be known as failed coups. The coup was plotted by the generals, and they have, so far, succeeded. Perhaps it will fail, or someone will mutiny and return Morsi to power. Too soon to tell. But the US should repeal this stupid law in any case. To hell with "democracy."

[dipsydoodle]

11. It was a popular uprising in the CITIES : not the COUNTRYSIDE.

When elections occur both are accounted for. That was how Morsi was democratically elected.

Chances are same will happen next time round.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. There is a national security waiver. How handy.

[Coyotl]

10. US law makes it a war crime to aid insurgents. Syria and Libya anyone?

Under the UN charter, nations cannot aid in destabalizing other countries!

[arely staircase]

15. shouldn't we wait and see what obama does

then be against THAT?