3 ms·

I dont have the book to hand, but what I remember from "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook", cutting off communication lines (internal and external) is one of th

I dont have the book to hand, but what I remember from "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook", cutting off communication lines (internal and external) is one of the first things to do in a coup. Because that severely limits the governments and attached agencies response, and confuses the members of the public in support of the incumbent. Next step is to detain all people in power opposed to you and occupy the legislative while cutting off physical halls of power to the un-initiated. Then you declare yourself as ruler (ideally using legal loop-holes available to you by controlling all, normally separated, powers). It all has to be done quickly as alternative communication lines will be established quickly and the outranged masses wont be controllable if they still have hope to restore the old regime. There was a bit of talk of the storm on the Capitol to be something of a coup. But they did not cut off communication lines and lacked a lot of the organization you need to follow the coup d'Etat protocol. Although storming the Capitol was a display of power that is not in line of how I believe a democracy should be governed, but calling it a coup was a hyperbole in my opinion. Putting the two together, if the president looses access to communication lines and then is being removed by the legislative and parts of the executive (vice-president), then that actually looks a lot closer to the definition of a coup as I see it. Although separate ownership of all the media that is closing down on Trump would imply a coordinated shutdown of communication is close to impossible, weirdly the group-think makes it happen. And although it might not be centrally planned as it would happen in a traditional coup from the 20th century, the process is remarkably similar. So I think if POTUS is removed from office now, then the US will need to get ready for a lot of disrupting semantics from the Trump supporters for a long time. Just because you cannot hear them _now_, does not mean it is solved. If there is momentum it will come back. Potentially worse. This could develop into the Dolchstoßlegende [0] of the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

archagon 6y ago
The enforced transfer of democratic power from someone who really, really doesn’t want to go, and whose sycophants spout lies and propaganda regarding their victimhood at every opportunity, might look like a “coup” to those on their side. But there is simply no viable alternative.
- trwaway412312 6y ago
  I have the feeling that these words were more or less the same reasoning offered for all coups. That is were it gets dangerous. When no viable alternative leads to undemocratic processes that set the precedent for a lot of undemocratic stuff after. Lots of countries that forcibly removed presidents from office developed a tradition of doing it regularly (once a decade or two). I think there is an alternative in this case. Argue it out. If the president ends up getting removed by legal means, it should be clear enough reasoning and support by legislators that his arguments are clearly too weak to defend him. Be transparent and follow due process. And make clear that riots wont be tolerated. Alternatively, isolate him, disobey him if he orders against oaths and laws, but dont remove him. This way at least it is clearly not a coup. Since the president is isolated now from his followers (as it looks), and also his term is going to end in less two weeks, I think it is worth considering strongly to hold off with removing him from office before his term ends. Preparations have to be taken though to be able to remove him from office if he stays any longer than his term in office. Removing him forcibly then wont be a coup, because he is not POTUS anymore.
  - archagon 6y ago
    For the record, I doubt that he will actually be removed from office before his term expires. I also don’t necessarily disagree about the optics, from the perspective of his supporters. However, there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the process of impeachment. It is an expressly democratic escape valve for exactly this kind of situation. And it is unquestionably dangerous to have a mentally unstable president in charge of the military and nuclear arsenal, however short his term might be, and however much we might hope that his cabinet will disobey unlawful orders. (It is unlikely that the 25th would be able to remove him, even if there was overwhelming internal support for it, which there doesn’t seem to be.)

archagon 6y ago

The enforced transfer of democratic power from someone who really, really doesn’t want to go, and whose sycophants spout lies and propaganda regarding their victimhood at every opportunity, might look like a “coup” to those on their side. But there is simply no viable alternative.

trwaway412312 6y ago
I have the feeling that these words were more or less the same reasoning offered for all coups. That is were it gets dangerous. When no viable alternative leads to undemocratic processes that set the precedent for a lot of undemocratic stuff after. Lots of countries that forcibly removed presidents from office developed a tradition of doing it regularly (once a decade or two). I think there is an alternative in this case. Argue it out. If the president ends up getting removed by legal means, it should be clear enough reasoning and support by legislators that his arguments are clearly too weak to defend him. Be transparent and follow due process. And make clear that riots wont be tolerated. Alternatively, isolate him, disobey him if he orders against oaths and laws, but dont remove him. This way at least it is clearly not a coup. Since the president is isolated now from his followers (as it looks), and also his term is going to end in less two weeks, I think it is worth considering strongly to hold off with removing him from office before his term ends. Preparations have to be taken though to be able to remove him from office if he stays any longer than his term in office. Removing him forcibly then wont be a coup, because he is not POTUS anymore.
- archagon 6y ago
  For the record, I doubt that he will actually be removed from office before his term expires. I also don’t necessarily disagree about the optics, from the perspective of his supporters. However, there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the process of impeachment. It is an expressly democratic escape valve for exactly this kind of situation. And it is unquestionably dangerous to have a mentally unstable president in charge of the military and nuclear arsenal, however short his term might be, and however much we might hope that his cabinet will disobey unlawful orders. (It is unlikely that the 25th would be able to remove him, even if there was overwhelming internal support for it, which there doesn’t seem to be.)