18635: Dorce: Re: 18619: honorat re:discussion points on coup d'etat (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 2/14/04 3:14:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, honorat writes:

>> The term coup d’etat has been used extensively as a smoke screen.  The
 trusty Webster’s dictionary defines it as: “a sudden and decisive measure in
 politics, esp. one affecting a change of government illegally or by force.
    Breaking down the definition and applying it to our case, we see that the
 term does not fit.  First, the situation affecting Haiti is not at all
 sudden.  It is the culmination of a series of crises that began with the
 “elections” of 2000 (May 21st and November 26th, respectively).  Secondly,
 and more importantly, a coup consists of an ILLEGAL change of government.
 Therefore, it stands to reason that, if the change is legal, it cannot be
 properly termed a coup d’etat. <<
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh my goodness!  Well, Merriam-Webster says this:
Etymology: French, literally, stroke of state
Date: 1646
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent
overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
The protests and impediments to progress started when the opposition saw they
were not going to win the presidential election nor garner many seats in
parliament.  They did what they felt they had to do and stonewalled every effort
of the elected government to join together make Haiti better.  Instead of
learning what they could do to earn the trust of the people who would vote, they
decided that the Haitian people did not deserve a democracy and must be told
what is good for them.  They got the IRI to help them get rid of the president
for them since their army was gone.  They got money to do their worst and they
have slowly but surely used the media to secure the support of the
weak-minded (much as is done by Bush in the US).  Constant repetition of lies
and half-truths (same as here), Scattered incidents of terrorism disguised as
Lavalas misdeeds.  Yes, the campaign has taken a long time but this violent
overthrow is sudden, decisive and by a small group.  LEGAL it isn't.  How do
you come to that conclusion that the violent overthrow of Aristide, which they
do advocate, no matter what they say, is legal?  It is not only illegal, it is
treason.  You may call it rebellion but the majority of Haitians still support
the government.  What this is, is an attempted coup d'etat.  I pray that's
all it is, attempted.  They will kill Haiti rather than see it in the hands of
the majority.  That is the shame that is Haiti.  Shame.

Kathy Dorce~