See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Op-Ed If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7d450f ... rump-wins%2C-a-coup.html?nhp=1
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: James Kirchick
Post Date: 2016-07-20 04:34:26 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 192
Comments: 6
Yahoo... Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story -- the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil -- should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency. Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich. At the Republican National Convention here Monday, Manafort put some of the tricks he learned overseas as a dictator whisperer to good use, employing underhanded tactics to avoid a roll call vote on the convention’s rules package and quietly removing language from the party platform expressing support for Ukraine’s democratic aspirations. A political speechwriter's take on Melania Trump's plagiarism A political speechwriter's take on Melania Trump's plagiarism Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly bragged about ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, and has dismissed the possibility that he would face any resistance. “They won’t refuse,” he told Fox News’ Bret Bair earlier this year. “They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.” When Baier insisted that such orders are “illegal,” Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.” Oh really? Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business, a criminal operation (the distinction is sometimes blurred) or a dictatorship. It does not, however, work in a liberal democracy, legally grounded by a written constitution, each branch restrained by separation of powers. Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not trust “the nuclear codes” to an “erratic individual.”) Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t? Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business...or a dictatorship. It does not work, however, in a liberal democracy. In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it. They might well choose the former. “I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as head of the CIA and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush, said in response to Trump’s autocratic ruminations. Asked by TV host Bill Maher what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, Hayden replied, “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.” “You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.” Previously, in those rare situations when irreconcilable disagreements have arisen between America’s civilian and military leadership, it is the latter who were ultimately deemed out of line. This was the case when President Truman acrimoniously fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur after he publicly criticized Truman for denying him permission to bomb China in the midst of the Korean War. Though MacArthur returned to the United States with a hero’s welcome, Truman’s decision endures as one of the most important in the history of American civil-military relations. Trump could pull a reverse-Truman, firing a general who refused to bomb. If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things -- from open racism to blatant lying. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or -- heaven forbid -- a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. Rubio might detest her, but he cannot honestly say that Clinton, a former secretary of State, should not be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes. Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to. James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press. Poster Comment: Coup more likely with a Clinton president. Those in the military must be war-weary and catching on to having be used to protect a bunch of thieves in Palestine. If Trump concentrates on business deals with Russia, China, etc., no need to go to war.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
National politics has finally found the bottom of the scum barrel ! There are no good choices available to the American voter. We are accustomed to the term "lesser of two evils" because that's become the trend for the past 75 years or more. But this time the electorate have the choice between the greater of two evils. Neither one of the candidates can take office without the opposition seemingly becoming murderous. Now that is a real shame. When the country is so divided that even before the election people start discussing coups which necessarily by definition are about assassination, the national condition is dangerous and the mood is dark. What's the point of an election at all if it's simply the space of time wasted before the shooting starts. Or maybe it's the amount of time necessary to allow people on both sides of the political equation to vent their frustrations. Personally, I find it amazingly hilarious that these political contests are usually filled with ad hominem attacks upon the deeds and character of the opposing politician to such an extent that both should be jailed rather than elected to a position of trust. The upside however is that voters haven't really had any say in elections or government for a very long time. "Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day". "The almighty Dollar ain't worth a buck". "White Lives Matter Most if you're white" Doug Scheidt
The election of Trump will be a coup in its own right.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Screw Ukraine and their NATO sock puppet government ?
Trump = Greg Stillson During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Bullshit. She'd let the nukes fly if she was having a bad hair day. The author is an idiot, Hillary Clinton and her femi-nazi entourage have all but declared war on Putin. No coup of any sort will take place in America without first addressing the rootless cosmopolitan demonizers (Oy VEY!)
#2. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#3. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#4. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
Trump could pull a reverse-Truman, firing a general who refused to bomb.
#5. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or -- heaven forbid -- a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#6. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
(Edited)
-Alex Kurtagic
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest