Coup attempt underway in Turkey

Not defending Erdogan here. Just being wary when people advocate for the removal of an authoritarian leader (Saddam, Assad...). It's easy to talk about free speech technologies when we enjoy the comfort we have. It's harder to look at history and try to have a conversation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/erdogans-counter-co...

Also some arguing it was a false flag operation https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/4t2pso/this_coup_re...

Dunno but something seems a bit off to me. How did they have a list of 2,745 judges to purge and 140 appeals court members to arrest the next morning? You'd think it'd take some time to figure that stuff if they hadn't been planning it.

All this happened in the space of a few weeks. It was such an about-face from their past postutring. I guess this puts things in context.

The rest of the country is far more conservative so they don't see the clamping down on various freedoms as being a problem and on top of the Erdogan has actually really done a good job of developing the poorer regions of Turkey which were rife with high unemployments and low prospects. On top of that people believe he's raised Turkey's importance on the world stage.

Another reason why I'm about 90% he'll win now that the opposition political parties have just come out against the coup - which if you know anything about Turkey is HUGE. These parties have literally called for Erdogan to be jailed but right now they're supporting him.

I don't even know what to make of that. I'm shocked.

Why do people support Trump?

Democracy is an abstract ideal that people are less likely to support when it seems to threaten more basic and immediate physical need for themselves or those emotionally close to them.

edit: the interview has just ended. I hope the clip can be found, because what this woman was saying was very interesting.

According to that illustration, the coup plotters missed the crucial step of breaching the president's residence and capturing him. They completely mistimed the coup when the president was on vacation outside the country. Now he has been able to rally support against the coup and his supporters are on the streets protesting against the army

If the coup you're executing results in civilians being able to seize a tank and police having soldiers in custody, the coup lacked the overwhelming ingredient and swift execution that would paralyze and kill any hope of resisting.

It needed to be clear that the deal was sealed to morally crush anyone willing to resist and make them understand that it's done and they'd better line up with the winning party.

Civilians seizing a tank means they sized the military presence and said "Meh.. we're going for it anyway".

An example of a well executed coup: The Algerian coup in 1965. Algerians woke up in the morning and found tanks in the streets of the capital, but it wasn't the beginning of the coup. It had already taken place. Tanks didn't really surprise because Gillo Pontecorvo was shooting "The Battle of Algiers" during that period and also used tanks (one of the greatest movies. Music by Ennio Morricone).

The President was seized in his bed during the night, they woke him up and he was made prisoner for 15 years (liberated by the subsequent President after Boumédiène's death). The coup's instigator had the control of the Army and Intelligence before.

There are many people who don't know there was a coup in 1965.

I keep reading that Erdogan is popular, but I also read that he was elected with only 13% of the vote.

While it sounds like a joke coming from Erdogan, with his "ambivalent" relationship to democracy, asking the people to go to the squares and streets is asking them to defend a democracy.

Sadly, either outcome still leaves Turkey less democratic and less stable than before. As it currently seems, Erdogan is going to have more power than ever before with all his adversaries purged from the military.

From the Reichsbrand Wikipedia link:

The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.[3][4] Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone, as he said, to protest the condition of the German working class. The Nazis accused the Comintern of the act. Some historians endorse the theory, proposed by the Communist Party, that the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis as a false flag operation.[5]

I abhor taking a contrarian position just for its own sake, but in this case, I simply must. I disagree that the Auspicious Affair was the death kneel of the Janissaries. The downfall of this corp class was self-inflicted: what started out as an effective military (and in some cases para-military) institution degenerated into a mafia of sorts where the Janissaries would "shake down" every new administration for an extra buck. Furthermore, the fact that the corp ventured into commerce and other non-military activities disengaged this warrior class from combat duties: these guys just sat around, scheming on how to get their way, and "wet their beaks" in every possible way imaginable (brothels, unsanctioned annexation of Serbia, et al). It is unimaginable that the Janissary corps could have been so 'easily' disbanded in 1826 if they had not lost their legitimacy, battle readiness, and integrity (integrity in this case is only in relation to my earlier point about their corruption). Their downfall was their own undoing.

>there were rumors

It is unimaginable that Turkish intelligence services knew nothing about this. While organizing a university students' strike is difficult, picture the logistical effort expended on a military coup, to say nothing of the heated arguments and active wooing that undoubtedly went on in various places in and outside Turkey itself. Military coups do not develop organic leadership; there needs to be a solid command and control structure deliberately and forcefully communicated to coup participants. Rules of engagement must be determined to avoid unnecessary confrontation and thresholds must also be established so that the leadership knows when goals have been accomplished and when the game is up. A case must be made to the rank and file and these soldiers allowed to make a conscious decision, the risk of dissenting soldiers informing the authorities notwithstanding. A battalion of men and the equipment and support necessary for them to function must be made available for independent and effective operations: weapons, armor, transportation, fuel, air support, flight control, encrypted communication gear, carriers/tanks, etc. This stuff takes more than a day or two to make ready and neither does it stroll out of barracks all on its own. Furthermore, elaborate plans must be made to severe connection: analogue, digital, and Internet broadcasts. Your guys need to have the complete attention of the entire country. Interventions must, therefore, be made at the ISP/broadcaster level. It is feasible that the political administration of this Erdoğan fellow allowed the situation to escalate as it so violently did.

>This coup attempt could not have come at a better time.

Perhaps this is why the political administration needed this to go through (somewhat). However, we must all be cognizant of the fact that there is a parallel society that operates within Turkey (forgetting for a moment that there is a strong secular movement, particularly in the west) led largely by Gülen. This section of society will not melt away. I think that the coup came at the worst of times for the incumbent. The fact that it was unsuccessful means that Erdoğan, in appeasing his supporters and demonstrating resolve, must 'act tough.' However, as in almost all other coup cases in the country and thanks to Turkey's long and storied history with its military, compromises will have to be made. There will be a purge (I speculate), but not one that catastrophically degrades the ability of this new Janissary corps to stage an outright or 'palace' coup in the future. Secondly, the secular movement will be emboldened by the revelation that a section of the Armed Forces (perhaps the movement's strongest and most consistent ally) is fed up with the Islamization of the society at the expense of the society. The Gülen camp, on the other hand, will be emboldened by the fact that Erdoğan is not the tsar that he makes himself out to be (not that they did not know that, but now they have real, demonstrable, and irrefutable proof: Look, coup! Weak!) and will propose that the camp's exiled leader is the panacea to the unification struggle that is sure to follow. Domestic politics is not cast in stone and whatever the incumbent does over the course of the next months will not discount the divisive tragedy of modern-day Turkey. Turkey has just begun (again) the search for its soul. This time, however, there is little chance that the king will have his way at the expense of all other interests- there will be no decisive victory or vindication. This country is just too big to contain anymore. From yours truly, Arm-chair general

(Regardless of particulars — did the US initiate it? support it? simply signal they'd stand back and let a friendly coup happen? — he has a good predictive mental model.)

I searched perseus for "ut semper" and found two results that might have relevance. The first was this:

> But the expression does not imply that he conceived them as 50 miles in perpendicular height, but that there is a continuous ascent of 50 miles to get to the summit. This explanation of the passage is adopted by Alexandre; Lemaire, ut supra.

Unfortunately, that is evidently English, not Latin.

The second was this:

> Quid quaeris? Est consul φιλόπατρις et, ut semper iudicavi, natura bonus.

(emphasis added)

Which I tentatively translate as "What are you asking? He is a filial consul and, as I have always judged, a good man by nature."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ut&la=la lists ut as having, among many, many other senses, the sense of "adverb of manner", which is the one at play in the above example and would also be the sense relevant to "ut semper". The dictionary entries give a large number of examples, but as far as I can see there are no examples in which the clause following ut does not contain a verb.

Imagine that the decision in Marbury v. Madison came out the opposite way; or, more abstractly, that the Supreme Court upheld legislation that was prima facie contradictory to the text of Constitution. That would necessarily imply one of two things; either 1) the courts are choosing to enforce an illegal law, or 2) the courts are deferring to Congress's interpretation of the Constitution and thus concluding that, despite appearances, it's legal. The former would mean that there was no rule of law. The latter would mean that the Supreme Court isn't actually the _supreme_ court, but rather an inferior court in terms of interpreting the law.

The logic of Marbury v. Madison says that because the American form of government is built upon on the principle of separation of powers, and that in the English tradition it's the court's role to interpret statutes (not the legislature's), that it would be a violation of separation of powers for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress's interpretation of the constitution. Also, in the English tradition of Due Process laws can generally only be enforced through court order, not independently by executive fiat. And the U.S. Constitution explicitly says that the "judicial power" rests with the courts.

The academic debate about judicial review is misleading. Judicial review is often described in contradistinction to the rule in England--Parliamentary Supremacy. But we must remember two critical things: 1) the UK does not have a written constitution, and 2) until just a few years ago the highest court in the UK was composed of Law Lords from the House of Lords. The House of Lords being a constituent part of Parliament, the highest court was thus the same institution as the body writing legislation.

The debate about what we now call judicial review didn't just occur at the national level; it played out in every single state. And while many contemporary jurists paid lip service to the idea of courts being inferior to the legislative body, I don't think the debate played out any differently in any of original colonies or subsequent states in actuality. It's really difficult in the Anglo-American legal tradition for courts to _not_ have the power of judicial review, while maintaining the logic the political system is built upon.

We can _imagine_ a constitutional system where courts defer to the explicit or implicit decision of the legislature regarding constitutionality. But I don't think that actually exists anywhere in the world where the principle of separation of powers is enshrined in the organic law (written or unwritten). The closest I can think of is Japan where their supreme court regularly seems to uphold statutes which conflict with the written constitution, but they _have_ nullified statutes a few times, and certainly I don't think they've formally abdicated their role wrt judicial review.

We do have a form of the above in the United States. There are some situations which are considered "non-judiciable" by the Supreme Court. For example, nobody can challenge through the courts some of the formal requirements the Constitution imposes on Congress regarding their proceedings. The Supreme Court has said that in some situations it must refrain from exercising it's normal power of judicial review because it would cause the court, as an institution, to become too entangled with another branch of government. This is also partly why courts are reticent to censure or make demands on high-level executive officials, e.g. regarding national security. Even if behavior is patently illegal, by getting involved the court risks injuring the very principle of separation of powers by imposing its interpretation of the law above that of the other body.

The judiciary is the weakest branch of government. The judges can be impeached by Congress. Congress can arbitrarily expand the size of the Supreme Court and then, with the President, start appointing whoever they want (e.g. there are 9 justices right now. Congress could constitutionally pass a law making there be 21 justices). Finally, and most damning, the judiciary has no power to enforce its decisions. It relies on the respect of the executive branch to enforce its decisions. There are plenty of (fortunately long-past) historical examples of the executive branch blatantly ignoring the judiciary. Contrast this to the military, which has very obvious ultimate power to enforce itself.

There have not exactly been rejoicing in European media. Not sure if that is a good sign, but I take it as there is little propaganda going on, so this might have been planned primarily by internal forces.

Power resides where people believe it resides. The monarch can only do any of that if people believe in the monarch.

That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of the military as a last resort. At most I think it would be best if they stood aside for a revolution rather than actually instigating a coup.

The closest thing we have is the supreme power of the Supreme Court.

But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.

Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill...

It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties.

Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".

In that case, the military's natural tendency to side with the people and the nominal legitimacy of the democratic leader would likely trump some words spoken due to medieval traditions.

Ambiguity like that could get very messy, but that's exactly what makes it so unattractive for would-be despots to count on the military for internal power struggles.

>They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.

You make it seem like a fact and not what the leavers were shouting from the rooftops.

Because long term, they believe they will be better off.

And really, many people cast their vote as a protest vote for the current politics, rather than as a genuine opposition to EU.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you risk alienating a lot of childless people with this rhetoric. I don't have children, but I like to think I care about the future of my continent, as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/03/hengame...

I think they go way too far, and a that some of it is bigotry hiding behind the excuse of secularism, but it illustrates that determining what sufficiently negatively "affects others" to be worth sanction can be used to reach widely different conclusions..

Je suis Charlie

I guess Americans would take offense to this view, but I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture, or something.

It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.

It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man), so how is a women covering her breasts any different than a woman covering her head? I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant, and then in order to receive an education you are forced to break with a core tenet of your religious and cultural beliefs, and as a poster below pointed out, feel naked in your new school.

The ban in France is for face-covering only, and it applies to anybody (male/female).

There are serious reasons for this, both cultural- and security-based.

Head scarves are allowed in France, to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT:

The law bans "the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools" [1]

So you can wear a head scarf as long as it does not imply religious affiliation. As a matter of fact, head scarves have been present in high fashion (Azzedine Alaia,etc) for a while.

[1] Wikipedia: The bill passed France's national legislature and was signed into law by President Jacques Chirac on 15 March 2004 (thus the technical name is law 2004-228 of 15 March 2004) and came into effect on 2 September 2004, at the beginning of the new school year. The full title of the law is "loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics" (literally "Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004, concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools").

It was widely debated. I'm still not sure what was the best thing to do.

At some point, you also have to ask how far we can tolerate things in the name of religion. Just because something is of religious nature doesn't mean that it has to be accepted.

And, Orban?