Was the election 2000 a coup d'edat? c-span this AM

[napi21]

Maxine Waters was on c-span this morning to talk about Hati, but the conversation also covered the US elections and our involvement in Hati. They talked quite a bit about a copu d'etat in Hati, sponsored by the US.

I wanted to find out just what a coup d'etat was and found this link:

http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/framer.html?pg=2

".....Normally, a coup does not seek to destroy the basic structure of the existing government, which is more typical of a revolution or a war for liberation. Instead, Luttwak explains, those undertaking a true coup d'etat "want to seize power within the present system, and shall only stay in power if embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy." 6 (Emphasis in original.)

In other words, the coup takes advantage of the governmental structure itself, as well as the bureaucratic nature of modern governments. There is an established hierarchy, an accepted chain of command, and standard procedures that are followed when instructions come down this pipeline. So long as the instructions come from the appropriate source or level of authority, they will almost always be followed even if from a new, and illegitimate, holder of that authority.

Thus, by gaining control over a few carefully selected pivotal points of power within the government bureaucracy, the plotters of the coup can effectively gain control over the entire "machine" of state."

Take a look at this article. It sure seems like that's what has happened here in the USA!

I didn't read far enough into the article to find out how you correct it.

[papau]

1. you corrected it -in the past -via violent removal of coup leaders

Which is why those leaders usually demanded US protection for doing the the foreign policy move desired by the CIA/GOP.

[Q]

2. Many on the Left have been saying this since...2000

...but we were overruled by the appeasers of the coup...the neocons and neodems. We were told to 'move on' because we should concentrate on the future instead of 'worrying' about the past.

[Mairead]

3. What bothers me most is (a) that there's even a question about it

and (b) that the question is 'is it?' rather than 'how do we prevent it ever, ever happening again?'.

Because if they can do it to us once, they can do it to us again. The bureaucracy really does have no motivation other than to continue its own orderly existence, and it will happily go on doing its job no matter where the orders come from.

[leesa]

4. Bear shit in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic? Etc., etc.,

[Jacobin]

5. No. Under Scalia's "plain reading" of the constitution

SCOTUS is entitled to pick the president.

/sarcasm