Burma Bites

Fox News wrote:

Why is the military taking control in Burma?

JAKARTA, Indonesia – Burma's military has taken control of the country under a one-year state of emergency and reports say State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other government leaders have been detained. Here are some possible reasons why the military has taken over now:

THE CONSTITUTION

The announcement on military-owned Myawaddy TV cited Article 417 of the country's constitution, which allows the military to take over in times of emergency. The announcer said the coronavirus crisis and the government's failure to postpone November elections were reasons for the emergency.

The military drafted the constitution in 2008 and retains power under the charter at the expense of democratic, civilian rule. Human Rights Watch has described the clause as a "coup mechanism in waiting."

The constitution also reserves key Cabinet ministries and 25% of the seats in Parliament for the military, a portion that limits the power of a civilian government and rules out amending the charter without military support.

Some experts expressed puzzlement as to why the military would upset their powerful status quo, but others noted the looming retirement of Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who has been commander of the armed forces since 2011.

"There’s internal military politics around that, which is very opaque," said Kim Jolliffe, a researcher on Burma civilian and military relations. "This might be reflecting those dynamics and might be somewhat of a coup internally and his way of maintaining power within the military."

The military has assigned Vice President Myint Swe, a former military officer, as head of the government for one year.

THE ELECTIONS

In November elections, Suu Kyi’s party captured 396 out of 476 seats in the combined lower and upper houses of Parliament. The state Union Election Commission has confirmed that result.

But the military since shortly after the elections has claimed there were millions of irregularities in voter lists in 314 townships that could have let voters cast multiple ballots or commit other "voting malpractice."

"But they haven’t really shown any proof of that," Jolliffe said.

The election commission rejected the claims last week, stating there was no evidence to support them.

The military takeover came on what was to be the first day of the new Parliament following the elections.

Instead, Suu Kyi and other lawmakers who would have been sworn into office were reported detained.

A later announcement on Myawaddy TV said the military would hold an election after the one-year emergency ends and would turn over power to the winner.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW

Telecommunications came to a near halt in the morning and early afternoon. In the capital, internet and phone access appeared to be blocked. Many people elsewhere in the country who could still access the internet found their social media accounts had been temporarily suspended.

Barbed wire road blocks were set up across Yangon, the largest city, and military units began to appear outside government buildings such as City Hall.

Residents flocked to ATMs and food vendors, while some shops and homes removed the symbols of Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, that typically adorn the streets and walls of the city.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Governments and international organizations condemned the takeover, saying it sets back the limited democratic reforms Burma has made.

"This is an extremely crushing blow to efforts to present Burma as a democracy," said Linda Lakhdhir, a legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. "Its creditability on the world stage has taken a massive hit."

Watchdogs fear a further crackdown on human rights defenders, journalists, and others critical of the military. Even before the current military takeover, journalists, free speech advocates and critics of the military often faced legal action for publicly criticizing it.

A U.S. senator raised the possibility the United States could again impose economic sanctions, which the U.S. lifted when Burma was transitioning to civilian rule.

Burma's military leaders "must immediately free the democratic leaders of Burma and remove themselves from government," said Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "If not, the United States and other countries should impose strict economic sanctions, as well as other measures" against the military and military leaders, he said.

Former U.S. diplomat Bill Richardson said the Biden administration and other governments should act swiftly to impose sanctions. He also questioned Suu Kyi's ability to lead given her defense of the military's actions against ethnic Rohingya Muslims.

"Because of Suu Kyi’s failure to promote democratic values as Burma's de facto leader, she should step aside and let other Burma democratic leaders take the reins with international backing and support," Richardson said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/why-is-the-military-taking-control-in-burma

Original Quill wrote:

Fox News wrote:

Why is the military taking control in Burma?

JAKARTA, Indonesia – Burma's military has taken control of the country under a one-year state of emergency and reports say State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other government leaders have been detained. Here are some possible reasons why the military has taken over now:

THE CONSTITUTION

The announcement on military-owned Myawaddy TV cited Article 417 of the country's constitution, which allows the military to take over in times of emergency. The announcer said the coronavirus crisis and the government's failure to postpone November elections were reasons for the emergency.

The military drafted the constitution in 2008 and retains power under the charter at the expense of democratic, civilian rule. Human Rights Watch has described the clause as a "coup mechanism in waiting."

The constitution also reserves key Cabinet ministries and 25% of the seats in Parliament for the military, a portion that limits the power of a civilian government and rules out amending the charter without military support.

Some experts expressed puzzlement as to why the military would upset their powerful status quo, but others noted the looming retirement of Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who has been commander of the armed forces since 2011.

"There’s internal military politics around that, which is very opaque," said Kim Jolliffe, a researcher on Burma civilian and military relations. "This might be reflecting those dynamics and might be somewhat of a coup internally and his way of maintaining power within the military."

The military has assigned Vice President Myint Swe, a former military officer, as head of the government for one year.

THE ELECTIONS

In November elections, Suu Kyi’s party captured 396 out of 476 seats in the combined lower and upper houses of Parliament. The state Union Election Commission has confirmed that result.

But the military since shortly after the elections has claimed there were millions of irregularities in voter lists in 314 townships that could have let voters cast multiple ballots or commit other "voting malpractice."

"But they haven’t really shown any proof of that," Jolliffe said.

The election commission rejected the claims last week, stating there was no evidence to support them.

The military takeover came on what was to be the first day of the new Parliament following the elections.

Instead, Suu Kyi and other lawmakers who would have been sworn into office were reported detained.

A later announcement on Myawaddy TV said the military would hold an election after the one-year emergency ends and would turn over power to the winner.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW

Telecommunications came to a near halt in the morning and early afternoon. In the capital, internet and phone access appeared to be blocked. Many people elsewhere in the country who could still access the internet found their social media accounts had been temporarily suspended.

Barbed wire road blocks were set up across Yangon, the largest city, and military units began to appear outside government buildings such as City Hall.

Residents flocked to ATMs and food vendors, while some shops and homes removed the symbols of Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, that typically adorn the streets and walls of the city.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Governments and international organizations condemned the takeover, saying it sets back the limited democratic reforms Burma has made.

"This is an extremely crushing blow to efforts to present Burma as a democracy," said Linda Lakhdhir, a legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. "Its creditability on the world stage has taken a massive hit."

Watchdogs fear a further crackdown on human rights defenders, journalists, and others critical of the military. Even before the current military takeover, journalists, free speech advocates and critics of the military often faced legal action for publicly criticizing it.

A U.S. senator raised the possibility the United States could again impose economic sanctions, which the U.S. lifted when Burma was transitioning to civilian rule.

Burma's military leaders "must immediately free the democratic leaders of Burma and remove themselves from government," said Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "If not, the United States and other countries should impose strict economic sanctions, as well as other measures" against the military and military leaders, he said.

Former U.S. diplomat Bill Richardson said the Biden administration and other governments should act swiftly to impose sanctions. He also questioned Suu Kyi's ability to lead given her defense of the military's actions against ethnic Rohingya Muslims.

"Because of Suu Kyi’s failure to promote democratic values as Burma's de facto leader, she should step aside and let other Burma democratic leaders take the reins with international backing and support," Richardson said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/why-is-the-military-taking-control-in-burma

As one commentator said: "Sounds like the Burma military learned a lot from Trump. Claim voter fraud and take over the nation and claim the courts didn't hear evidence when you had none. I am sure this won't be the first copycat."

Maddog wrote:Yeah, this is the first military take over in the history of the world.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Yeah, this is the first military take over in the history of the world.

Not quite.  It happened in Egypt in July, 2013.   Egyptian army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi led a coalition to remove the President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, from power and suspended the Egyptian constitution of 2012.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/egypt.html

Eilzel wrote:Neighboring Thailand has had 13 coups in 100 years. They aren’t new to Myanmar either. Don’t think they needed lessons from Trump, if anything he was trying to take a page from their books.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Military coups are practically a national sport in that part of the world. I wouldn’t think that The Donald, or anyone else, was uppermost in the colonels’ minds when they did it.

Ben Reilly wrote:It does seem like there's a lot of anti-democratic sentiment circulating in the world now, and the number of Americans publicly and enthusiastically embracing autocracy certainly can't help the situation. Fairly or not, America's still the standard-bearer for self rule.

At any rate, there can never be too many people saying that armed people should not be threatening and arresting people who were elected to represent their communities.

As I went walking I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.

Original Quill wrote:Freedom is less, yes.  But, like Ben, I think the real issue of western democracy is self rule.  Freedom is a variable that we have more or less of, depending on the needs of public protection.

But it's not the end.  After all, to have complete and boundless freedom, we would have to prohibit private property.

I'm reminded of a verse from that old Woody Guthrie song, This Land is Your Land:

As I went walking I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.

Original Quill wrote:Well...you have self-rule, Republicans and their faux voter fraud notwithstanding.

As far as Arlo Guthrie and his Alice's Restaurant song, well he was exercising his freedom to dump garbage out on this vast, open side-road of ours.  That the kind of freedom y'all want?  

https://www.google.com/search?q=alice%27s+restaurant+lyrics&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS905US905&oq=Alice%27s+restaurant+lyrics&aqs=chrome.0.0l3j0i395l3j0i22i30i395l4.15237j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It does seem like there's a lot of anti-democratic sentiment circulating in the world now, and the number of Americans publicly and enthusiastically embracing autocracy certainly can't help the situation. Fairly or not, America's still the standard-bearer for self rule.

At any rate, there can never be too many people saying that armed people should not be threatening and arresting people who were elected to represent their communities.

There's far less than there used to be.

Granted the US has been sliding in terms of freedom for the past few decades.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There's far less than there used to be.

Granted the US has been sliding in terms of freedom for the past few decades.  

Oh, lordy. What freedoms have you lost, and who took them from you?

Original Quill wrote:CATO?  The Koch Bros.' CATO?  Any freedom metric from them has got to be along the scale of freedom to oppress others!  

See, Mayer, Jane, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (2016).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

Maddog wrote:Our decline started after 911 with the Patriot Act and other government intrusions.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Our decline started after 911 with the Patriot Act and other government intrusions.  

The decline started  on December 12, 2000, when the United States Supreme handed down the decision of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).  That's when elections ceased to matter.

Original Quill wrote:Freedom is a commodity, that expands and contracts with what is legally permissible...and yes, I mean the laws that protect private property: the right to contract, possess and own, as well as transact, and other safeguards to monetary self-interest.  Most metrics forget about that, or treat them as negative space, or equate them with some unrestricted domain, and hence freedom.

As laws restrict, freedom contracts; as laws enable, freedom expands.  But laws are only one part of the environment.

RW'ers view most laws as regulatory, and so conceive of freedom as a minimum of laws.  Hence, the emphasis on minimal government.  But they forget that private interests can also restrict freedom, and the absence of laws is merely the void where private interests permeate.  Regulations restrict freedom, yes, but doesn't a rise in your electric bill from the power company, also?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Freedom is a commodity, that expands and contracts with what is legally permissible...and yes, I mean the laws that protect private property: the right to contract, possess and own, as well as transact, and other safeguards to monetary self-interest.  Most metrics forget about that, or treat them as negative space, or equate them with some unrestricted domain, and hence freedom.

As laws restrict, freedom contracts; as laws enable, freedom expands.  But laws are only one part of the environment.

RW'ers view most laws as regulatory, and so conceive of freedom as a minimum of laws.  Hence, the emphasis on minimal government.  But they forget that private interests can also restrict freedom, and the absence of laws is merely the void where private interests permeate.  Regulations restrict freedom, yes, but doesn't a rise in your electric bill from the power company, also?

And that commodity has become less common here during the past 20 years. Others places it has become more common.  

Original Quill wrote:Freedom is a commodity, that expands and contracts with what is legally permissible...and yes, I mean the laws that protect private property: the right to contract, possess and own, as well as transact, and other safeguards to monetary self-interest.  Most metrics forget about that, or treat them as negative space, or equate them with some unrestricted domain, and hence freedom.

As laws restrict, freedom contracts; as laws enable, freedom expands.  But laws are only one part of the environment.

RW'ers view most laws as regulatory, and so conceive of freedom as a minimum of laws.  Hence, the emphasis on minimal government.  But they forget that private interests can also restrict freedom, and the absence of laws is merely the void where private interests permeate.  Regulations restrict freedom, yes, but doesn't a rise in your electric bill from the power company, also?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And that commodity has become less common here during the past 20 years. Others places it has become more common.  

But, the commodity of freedom has become less or more by whom?  Legal measures are only boundaries put down by civic interests.  There are a whole host of boundaries put down by private interests: "Private property, no trespassing" or "pay your bill or service will be discontinued".

Government is just one player in a whole field of players.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But, the commodity of freedom has become less or more by whom?  Legal measures are only boundaries put down by civic interests.  There are a whole host of boundaries put down by private interests: "Private property, no trespassing" or "pay your bill or service will be discontinued".

Government is just one player in a whole field of players.

Only government can force you to use its services and force you to pay for them..  It's soley in charge of your freedom, not a business. Now it could diminish your economic freedom by imposing its will on people or business.  An example would be a ban on the sale or use of a particular plant product for a business or a tax on distilled plant products.  

The criteria for the ranking is spelled out in great detail in the link.  You should read it instead of making it up.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Only government can force you to use its services and force you to pay for them..  It's soley in charge of your freedom, not a business. Now it could diminish your economic freedom by imposing its will on people or business.  An example would be a ban on the sale or use of a particular plant product for a business or a tax on distilled plant products.  

The criteria for the ranking is spelled out in great detail in the link.  You should read it instead of making it up.  

Yes, government deals in absolutes, but don’t kid yourself.  Business and wealth move in far more coercive, if inscrutable, ways.  After all, they answer to profit, not people.

With government we have constitutional guarantees.  Additionally, we have the will of the majority, which Republicans do not like, but which assures that the needs and desires of most people are met.

The entire rest of universal space is left to private use—and use it, they do.  In the early 19th-century you could walk for hundreds of miles and not meet another person.  Then along came trains, cars and airplanes—along with bricks, mortar and steel—and suddenly we were many, constantly bumping into one another.

In the Gilded Age of the late 19th-century, wealth and privilege were attempting to set up economic autocracies, in the form of monopolies on gold, silver, aluminum, salt, electricity and fossil fuels, wherein no one would have freedom.  Confronting their cutthroat tactics, motivated solely by self-interest, posed a much greater threat than a majority-led government.

One thing that is constant is that government remains steadfast in exercising its power on behalf of the common good.  It has promoted benefits, in the form of bridges, dams, tunnels, airports, hospitals, and an interstate highway system, while holding back the selfish interests of the plutocrats.  And, even in law-making, government has promoted the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and millions of other acts that the selfish interests would find it unprofitable to underwrite.

The government we have is dedicated to the welfare of all, whereas ungoverned, the few would take over and and create only freedoms for themselves.  I understand the appeal to those ambitious sorts who fancy themselves ending up on the top of the heap after the dust clears.  But I take the bigger picture.  Even if it works against my own self-interest, I will opt for the happiness and well-being of all.  Call it 'enlightened' self-interest.

In sum, I like the system we have, and I think a libertarian alternative would lead to something akin to a third-world disaster.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:You like the tyranny of the masses as long as you're in the majority and complain when you're not.

I respect the individual rights pronounced in the first nineteen amendments, and amendment 26, to the US Constitution.

But yes...I also like the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution for all other questions.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Original Quill wrote:Yes I am.  Just not the way southerners read them (well, when they can read).

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You mean with their original intent as opposed to making up a new one to fit your political ideology?

For example, here's what the 2nd-Amendment actually says:

US Constitution wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Southerners pay no heed to the "well regulated Militia" qualifying part, and use the 2nd-Amendment as authority to carry guns to parties, rallies and even convenience markets.  They do not hesitate to fire the guns, and kill people indiscriminately.  

The original intent was to assure that citizens were equipped for organized defense of the US, not for gang violence and mob rule.  They twist the entire meaning of the Constitution.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


For example, here's what the 2nd-Amendment actually says:





Southerners pay no heed to the "well regulated Militia" qualifying part, and use the 2nd-Amendment as authority to carry guns to parties, rallies and even convenience markets.  They do not hesitate to fire the guns, and kill people indiscriminately.  

The original intent was to assure that citizens were equipped for organized defense of the US, not for gang violence and mob rule.  They twist the entire meaning of the Constitution.

And in order to be well equipped, to provide for the security of the free state, the right to arms can't be infringed.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And in order to be well equipped, to provide for the security of the free state, the right to arms can't be infringed.  

[size=36]Nonsense.  Southerners ignore the militia qualification, and use the 2nd-Amendment as justification to brandish firearms as toys.

As a consequence, we have shootings every-other week in our schools—killing our children—and use firearms instead of reasoning to contest political issues.

The whole idea of the Constitution was to put debate on a reasonable footing, and get rid of a constant state of war.[/size]

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

[size=36]Nonsense.  Southerners ignore the militia qualification, and use the 2nd-Amendment as justification to brandish firearms as toys.

As a consequence, we have shootings every-other week in our schools—killing our children—and use firearms instead of reasoning to contest political issues.

The whole idea of the Constitution was to put debate on a reasonable footing, and get rid of a constant state of war.[/size]

There are no qualifications listed for the militia in the Constitution.   

Only that a well armed population is necessary to provide for one.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are no qualifications listed for the militia in the Constitution.   

Only that a well armed population is necessary to provide for one.  

There are no qualifications listed for "law" in the Constitution either, yet "due process of law" is perhaps the most quoted part of the Constitution.

If you have a problem with the meaning of a word, refer to a dictionary.

Original Quill wrote:Another "freedom-seeking" individual just killed 11 people in Bolder, Colorado...one a police officer.  Guess he was tired of locking down his guns.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Another "freedom-seeking" individual just killed 11 people in Bolder, Colorado...one a police officer.  Guess he was tired of locking down his guns.

Was he from Burma or the South.  

Did he violate the NAP?.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Was he from Burma or the South.  

Did he violate the NAP?.

Actually, it's 10 people.

No, he is from a much more primitive country...a country that allows people with guns to run amuck.

Original Quill wrote:Naturalized American.  More importantly, he's living in a jurisdiction that allowed him to purchase a firearm on March 16, without the remotest of background checks...which would have revealed his record of assaults.

Presumably, he will be sentenced to anger management classes.

Original Quill wrote:Colorado is a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks.  This means that a state conducts their own Brady NICS Program, including conducting firearm background.  In Colorado, all firearm transfers by licensed dealers are processed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which enforces federal, as well as state, purchaser prohibitions.  Information is sparse as of yet, but I suspect that this firearm was not handled by a licensed dealer.

Also, a Federal District judge recently blocked Boulder from enforcing its assault-weapon ban.  This may have negated some portions of the Colorado, or City law.

Original Quill wrote:Information is sparse.  But he did put that kid in a hospital.  He has such a history of bad temper and fights, that his lawyers are thinking of pleading insanity or lack of mental capacity.

Why the history was not picked up in a background check, I don't know.  Could be that CBI conducts less than adequate IV's.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Information is sparse.  But he did put that kid in a hospital.  He has such a history of bad temper and fights, that his lawyers are thinking of pleading insanity or lack of mental capacity.

Why the history was not picked up in a background check, I don't know.  Could be that CBI conducts less than adequate IV's.

He's got a good punch.  

Knocking someone out in a fight in school isn't going to preclude you from buying a firearm as an adult.