PyramidHead said:
The Bolivian Supreme Court ruled that term limits were unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Court ("Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional", literally 'Constitutional Plurinational Tribunal') - not the Supreme Court ("Tribunal Supremo de Justicia) - ruled that they were against the American Convention of Human Rights.
However, that is ludicrous, as recognized by pretty much every scholar in the Americas up till then. It was also recognized apparently by Morales himself, when he proposed a new constitution that contained term limits, and campaigned strongly for the public to support it. They did, and he got his constitution. Using it, he was reelected. Then he claimed that the first did not count because it was under the other constitution. The Court obliged. But then there were no further tricks, so he held a referendum to amend the constitution and have term limits abolished. A majority of voters said no. So, he went to the Court, and claimed that his own constitution - the one his own party proposed, that was passed due to his support - was violating his human rights, and more specifically, rights recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights. It was a ludicrous argument. The court agreed.
PyramidHead said:
To date, I have not seen any argument as to why the Bolivian SC should be considered illegitimate or less authoritative on legal matters than any other SC. It is as though the default assumption must be that Morales could not have been acting in good faith when he did what leaders in every country do, which is appoint officials to courts that will further his policy ideals, and using their rulings to establish precedence for what is and is not constitutional. The only way to make that uncharitable assumption is to start with it, and to start with the position that Morales is up to no good and only wants power for himself.
That is not remotely the case. There is in fact good evidence that the court is not doing its job properly, namely the fact that it keeps ruling in favor of Morales when it should be obvious that those rulings are wrong.
But moreover, it is not the case that whatever a court says is the law. The SCOTUS ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were constitutional, before a different SCOTUS said the previous SCOTUS was wrong. Further, whenever there is a 5-4 ruling, or a 6-3 ruling, or whatever, sometimes the majority is mistaken, even if there is no remedy in the judiciary. Of course, there is the difficult matter of assessing when to obey and when to disobey; there are considerations such as social peace that often weigh more heavily than the illegality or unconstitutionality of the ruling. But there are limits, of course.
PyramidHead said:
Acknowledging that a coup occurred, which it did, is just the first step as you point out. But almost no media outlets nor political figures are willing to do that, which is why I highlighted that aspect of the situation.
Actually, many and perhaps most of them across the Americas probably do - just not so much in the US...then again, there is plenty of that in the US too.
That is beside the point, though:
we can describe the events in terms that are certainly more precise than "military coup". To ask whether the described events consist in a military coup seems to be a question about the meaning of the expression "military coup" (i.e., whether the description fits the meaning of the words), and as such, pointless in this context.
That also goes to the claim of "Acknowledging" that a coup occur: again, we already have a (much) more precise description of the events. Whether that much more precise description of the events falls under the much less precise category "coup" seems puzzling (other than for rhetorical effect).
Pyramidhead said:
It does not make it morally wrong by itself; to get there, you have to recognize the flimsy accusations of fraud for what they are, namely memes with no coherent justification that carry water for the fascists whose mobs are currently assaulting MAS party members trying to make their way into the legislative chambers.
I see no good evidence that they endorse fascism, though they are religious nutjobs, and of course their behavior is unacceptable. But Morales ordered the use of force. The police and the military decided not to comply. In a way, it made sense: historically, in Latin America, when they do use force and kill some of the protesters, eventually they are punished, so caution would indicate not to use force (something similar may be happening in Chile by the way, where the violent protestors are of a different ideological stripe, and the government is respectful of the constitution). But the army chief (not the police) went further and told Morales to leave. Now as I said, I do not know the reasons for the chief of the army to do so, but he is not the one taking power. I think there is a reasonable chance that he actually did that to prevent further bloodshed (though that is a miscalculation, since bloodshed seems to be equally probably either way, and what he did gives Morales a comeback chance he otherwise would not have had, and in any case legitimizes him in the eyes of many people).
PyramidHead said:
Now is not the time to make fatuous comparisons between the Morales administration, legitimate in every sense that every American administration has been legitimate, and the Third Reich--especially when the people usurping power in Bolivia are actual fascists.
Actually, that was one of the examples: military coups are not always wrong. Moreover, when they are wrong, they are so to very different degrees. As far as this one goes, on the basis of the available information, it was very probably wrong, but there is no good reason to think it was so to a high degree. There is no good evidence of anything beyond a miscalculation, and not an attempt by the armed forces at a power grab.
PyramidHead said:
There is no way to draw such a parallel without ideological bias against Morales, given the facts.
No, that is an attack on me that has nothing to do with what I said. The example was to first establish that military coups are not always wrong. They usually are, but to different degrees. This one does not appear particularly wrong as coups go.
PyramidHead said:
From Newsweek, back in April:
BOLIVIAN LAWMAKERS SENT LETTER TO DONALD TRUMP ASKING HIM TO INTERVENE IN THEIR COUNTRY'S ELECTION
That is not remotely good evidence that the US is behind this.
PyramidHead said:
Again, there is nothing particularly abnormal or "irregular" in this election that would morally justify a coup, as you seem to be suggesting is possible, unless you begin the analysis with the uncritical notion that all laws established under Morales are illegitimate.
You are assuming motivations I do not have. I actually think that overall, the coup (or more precisely, the call) was very probably not justified, if he (i.e., the army chief) should not have thought that the removal of Morales would likely prevent something much worse.
On the other hand, the refusal to use force against the Machado supporters (by the police and the army chiefs) may well have been justified; otherwise, in addition to the bloodshed, they and their subordinates would likely end up being punished for it, eventually (including prison terms).
PyramidHead said:
Furthermore, there is the damning existence of literally thousands of social media accounts that are obvious bots defending the coup or denying it occurred.
As there are thousands of activists saying that are making a parallel between the actions of the army and the military coups of the seventies in Latin America (unlike me, who was not equating Morales with Hitler but actually making the point about the actual relevant matters at hand). Neither fact says nothing about whether the man acted immorally or to what degree if he did.
PyramidHead said:
And if you're somehow trying to claim that these are just Bolivians who were inspired to create Twitter accounts in the 24 hours after their government was violently overthrown, get real. Here are some of the names of these accounts:
Obviously, there are armies of activists on both sides (using bots and other means) ready to defend whatever happens that goes their way and demonize the opponents; they did not start with the coup, and they would have been there with whatever events would have unfolded if the army chief had chosen not to call Morales instead.
PyramidHead said:
I'm sorry, but I have to call foul on the American hair-splitting over Morales' use of the levers of government, and the apologetics that continue to paint the situation as somehow morally ambiguous. Don't be useful idiots for the Nazis. And yes, they are Nazis.
Camacho seems to be a Christian zealot, not a Nazi. But regardless, even if he were a Nazi, it should be apparent that the vast majority of the people who demanded Morales's resignation are not Nazis. They have no interest in killing Jews, or in imposing a murderous regime such as that of the Third Reich, or in invading other countries, or any of the sort. And the self-proclaimed interim president also got into the presidential palace holding a Bible over her head, saying the Bible was coming back to the presidential palace - rather than persecuting people of the wrong race or ethnicity or whatever.
PyramidHead said:
Nothing is happening in Bolivia that gives the slightest reason for a non-blinkered, non-brainwashed observer to conclude that (a) Morales deserved to be ousted by force along with his line of successors in the senate, (b) America is a passive observer with no stake or involvement in the coup, nor (c) there is any substantive difference between the way the coup unfolded and the way countless other Western-backed operations in Latin America have unfolded.
(a) Morales did not have the right to run for office again in the first place. He deserved to be removed by congress, and of course by force if he refused to leave. But Congress would not do that. In any event, what he deserved is not the point. The matter is whether the army chief acted wrongfully, which I think he very probably did because he should have realized that telling Morales to go would backfire and give Morales a chance to go back, without reducing the risk of bloodshed. Still, his actions do not seem to have been nearly as wrong as those behind military coups in the seventies (or sixties, or eighties) in the region.
Moreover, there is no good evidence that his line of successors were removed by force or told to resign. Why they did so is unclear. Mesa says it's Morales play to increase turmoil and eventually come back. But I do not see good evidence one way or another at this point.
(b) Actually, there is no good reason to think America is behind the actions of the army chief. There are of course people in America supporting some of the opposition members, including Mesa and Camacho. There is no good evidence of government involvement supporting Camacho, though there is a good chance they gave resources and diplomatic support to Mesa. There is of course involvement by Venezuela and Cuba in support of Morales, and perhaps Russia too though I haven't seen conclusive evidence of that, either. But different degrees of involvement by various state actors (including the US) does not remotely warrant the belief that the US is behind the coup - more precisely, the call.
(c) Of course, there is. The coup is a call from the army chief telling Morales he should go. No evidence of US involvement in the call. No attempt from the military to take power. No bloodshed. And so on. It was a pretty unusual coup (there are similarities too, like the big blunder boosting Morales globally as we speak, but again, locals make plenty of blunders on their own without US involvement, so that's no good reason to think it was the US).
