The bad precedent of ignoring the law to continue arming Egypt's Military
Others here have pointed out that the U.S. pays Egypt with military assistance to the tune of $1.5 billion or so a year to not resume hostilities with Israel. Whether or not that's a valid expenditure is debatable but it has achieved its goal. I tend to think its shortsighted, but that's not the main issue here.
President Obama sidesteps law for Egypt
U.S. support of democracy seems clouded
For decades, foreign armies that received U.S. assistance were on notice that toppling their freely elected civilian leaders would mean an aid suspension.
After Egypt, that seems no more, despite a law requiring just that if Washington determined a coup had taken place.
The Obama administration made a technically legal move to decide not to decide if the Egyptian military’s ouster of the country’s first democratically elected president was a “coup.”
That’s now created a wide opening to skirt legislation intended to support the rule of law, good governance and human rights around the world — principles long deemed inviolable American values.
Previous U.S. administrations have endured criticism for appearing to pay them only lip service. But this new and unprecedented finding sends a confusing message that probably will resonate beyond Egypt to other fragile — and perhaps not so fragile — democracies where soldiers are unhappy with ballot box results or the policies of their elected commanders in chief.
<snip>
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013/jul/27/president-obama-sidesteps-law-for-egypt/
= new reply since forum marked as read
