The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.”
The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by DefenseSecretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.
During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.
- A D V E R T I S E M E N T
“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.
However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.
In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”
Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”
Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
- Panetta Says Dinky Pentagon Budge Cuts Unacceptable
- Panetta expected to replace Gates as Defense Department leader
- Panetta appears to link al-Qaeda presence with Iraq invasion
- Iran Announces Military Exercise After Panetta Refuses to Rule Out Attack
- Panetta: Iran revolution “matter of time”
- Panetta: Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan Will Continue
- Panetta: Iran could have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles in 2-3 years
- Panetta: Decision to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism Is Obama’s
- Panetta Reinforces Threat of “Lone Operators” in Latest Interview With CNN
- Panetta Believes Israel Will Attack Iran In April, May or June
- Panetta is Raising the Specter of Preemptive War
- The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.
Rubicon
Presumed course of the Rubicon
The Rubicon to the right of Cesena, at Pisciatello
The Rubicon (Latin: Rubicō, Italian: Rubicone) is a shallow river in northeasternItaly, about 80 kilometres long, running from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic Sea through the southern Emilia-Romagna region, between the towns of Rimini andCesena. The Latin word rubico comes from the adjective “rubeus”, meaning “red”. The river was so named because its waters are colored red by mud deposits. It was key to protecting Rome from Civil War.
The idiom “Crossing the Rubicon” means to pass a point of no return, and refers toJulius Caesar‘s army‘s crossing of the river in 49 BC, which was considered an act ofinsurrection. Because the course of the river has changed much since then, it is impossible to confirm exactly where the Rubicon flowed when Caesar and hislegions crossed it.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]History
During the Roman republic, the river Rubicon marked the boundary between theRoman province of Cisalpine Gaul to the north and Italy proper (controlled directly by Rome and its socii allies) to the south. Governors of Roman provinces were appointed promagistrates with imperium (roughly, “right to command”) in their province(s). The governor would then serve as the general of the Roman army within the territory of his province(s). Roman law specified that only the elected magistrates(consuls and praetors) could hold imperium within Italy. Any promagistrate who entered Italy at the head of his troops forfeited his imperium and was therefore no longer legally allowed to command troops.
Exercising imperium when forbidden by the law was a capital offence, punishable by death. Furthermore, obeying the commands of a general who did not legally possess imperium was also a capital offence. If a general entered Italy whilst exercising command of an army, both the general and his soldiers became outlaws and were automatically condemned to death. Generals were thus obliged to disband their armies before entering Italy.
In 49 BC, supposedly on January 10 of the Roman calendar, G. Julius Caesar led one legion, the Legio XIII Gemina, south over the Rubicon from Cisalpine Gaul to Italy to make his way to Rome. In doing so, he (deliberately) broke the law on imperium and made armed conflict inevitable. According to the historian Suetonius, Caesar uttered the famous phrase ālea iacta est (“the die has been cast”).[1] Caesar’s decision for swift action forced Pompey, the lawful consuls (G. Claudius Marcellus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus), and a large part of theRoman Senate to flee Rome in fear. Caesar’s subsequent victory in Caesar’s civil war ensured that punishment for the infraction would never be rendered.
Suetonius’s account depicts Caesar as undecided as he approached the river, and attributes the crossing to a supernatural apparition. The phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has survived to refer to any individual or group committing itself irrevocably to a risky or revolutionary course of action, similar to the modern phrase “passing the point of no return“.
[edit]Location confusion and resolution
After Caesar’s crossing, the Rubicon was a geographical feature of note until Emperor Augustus abolished the Province of Gallia Cisalpina(today’s northern Italy) and the river ceased to be the extreme border line of Italy. The decision robbed the Rubicon of its importance, and the name gradually disappeared from the local toponymy.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, and during the first centuries of the Middle Ages, the coastal plain between Ravenna and Rimini was flooded many times. The Rubicon, as with other small rivers of the region, often changed its course during this period. For this reason, and to supply fields with water after the revival of agriculture in the late Middle Ages, during the 14th and 15th centuries, hydraulic works were built to prevent other floods and to regulate streams. As a result of this work, these rivers eventually started flowing in straight courses, as they do today.
With the revival of interest in the topography of ancient Roman Italy during the 15th century, the matter of identifying the Rubicon in the contemporary landscape became a topic of debate among Renaissance humanists.[2] To support the claim of the Pisciatello, a spurious inscription forbidding the passage of an army in the name of the Roman people and Senate, the so-called Sanctio, was placed by a bridge on that river. The Quattrocento humanist Flavio Biondo was taken in by it;[3] the actual inscription is conserved in the Museo Archeologico, Cesena.[4] As the centuries went by, several rivers of Italian Adriatic coast between Ravenna and Rimini have at times been said to correspond to the ancient Rubicon.
The Via Aemilia (National Road N°9) still follows its original Roman course as it runs between hills and plain; it would have been the obvious course to follow as it was the only major Roman road east of the Apennine Mountains leading to and from the Po Valley. Attempts to deduce the original flow of the Rubicon can be done only by studying written documents and other archaeological evidence such as Roman milestones, which indicate the distance between the ancient river and the nearest Roman towns.
It is important to underline that the starting point of a Roman road (some kind of “mile zero”), from which distances were counted, was always the crossing between the Cardo and the Decumanus, the two principal streets in every Roman town, running north-south and east-west, respectively. In a section of the Tabula Peutingeriana, an ancient document showing the network of Roman roads, a river in north-eastern Italy labeled “fl. Rubico” is marked at a position 12 Roman miles (18 km) north of Rimini along the coastline; 18 km is the distance between Rimini and a place called “Ad Confluentes”, drawn west of the Rubicon, on the Via Aemilia.
In 1933, after various efforts spanning centuries, the river now called Fiumicino, crossing the town of Savignano di Romagna (now Savignano sul Rubicone), was officially identified as the former Rubicon. The final proof confirming this theory came only in 1991,[5] when three Italian scholars (Pignotti, Ravagli, and Donati), after a comparison between the Tabula Peutingeriana and other ancient sources (including Cicero), showed that the distance running from Rome to the Rubicon river was 320 km. Key elements of their work are:
- The locality of San Giovanni in Compito (now a western quarter of Savignano) has to be identified with the old Ad Confluentes (“compito” means confluence of roads and it is synonymous with “confluentes”)
- The distance between Ad Confluentes and Rome, according to the Tabula Peutingeriana, is 320 km
- The distance from today’s San Giovanni in Compito and the Fiumicino river is 1 Roman mile (1.48 km)
[edit]Present
Today there is very little evidence of Caesar’s historical passage. Savignano sul Rubicone is an industrial town and the river has become one of the most polluted in the Emilia-Romagna region. Exploitation of underground waters along the upper course of the Rubicon has reduced its flow—it was a minor river even during Roman times (“parvi Rubiconis ad undas” as Lucan said, roughly translated “to the waves of [the] tiny Rubicon”)—and has since lost its natural route, except in its upper course between low and woody hills.
Coup d’état
Warfare Military history |
|---|
| Portal |
A coup d’état (English: /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, French: [ku deta]; plural: coups d’état; translation: strike (against the) state, literally: strike/blow of state)—also known as a coup, putsch,andoverthrow—is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. If the coup neither fully fails nor achieves overall success, the attempted coup d’état is likely to lead to a civil war.
Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coupconsists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.
Contents[hide] |
Etymology
Although the coup d’état has featured in politics since antiquity, the phrase is of relatively recent coinage;[5] the Oxford Dictionary identifies it as a French expression meaning a “stroke of State”. Prof. Thomas Childers, of the University of Pennsylvania, indicates that the English language’s lacking a word denoting the sudden, violent change of government derives from England’s stable political traditions and institutions. French and German history are coloured with such politico-military actions.
Since the unsuccessful coups d’état of Wolfgang Kapp in 1920 (the Kapp Putsch), the Swiss German word Putsch (pronounced [ˈpʊtʃ]; coined for the Züriputsch of 1839) also denotes the same politico-military actions: in Metropolitan France, putsch denoted the 1942 and 1961 anti-government attacks in Algiers, and the 1991 August Putsch in the USSR; the German equivalent is Staatsstreich (the German literal translation of coup d’état), yet a putsch is not always a coup d’état, for example, the Beer Hall Putsch was by politicians without military support.
Usage of the phrase
Linguistically, coup d’état denotes a “stroke of state” (French: coup [stroke] d’ [of] État [state]).[6] Analogously, the looser, quotidian usage means “gaining advantage on a rival”, (intelligence coup, boardroom coup). Politically, a coup d’état is a usually violent political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d’état involves control, by an active minority of military usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) military’s possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country’s key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure. It is to be noted that in the latest years there has been a broad use of the phrase in mass media, which may contradict the legal definition of coup d’état.
Pronunciamiento
The Pronunciamiento (Pronouncement) is a Spanish and Latin American type of coup d’état. The coup d’état (called golpe de estado in Spanish) was more common in Spain and South America, while the Pronunciamiento was more common in Central America. ThePronunciamiento is the formal explanation for deposing the regnant government, justifying the installation of the new government that was effected with the golpe de estado. The difference between a coup and a pronunciamento is that in the former, a military faction deposes the civilian government and assumes power, in the latter, the military depose the civil government and install another civil government.[7]
History
Coups d’état are common in Africa; between 1952 and 2000, thirty-three countries experienced 85 such depositions. Western Africa had most of them, 42; most were against civil regimes; 27 were against military regimes; and only in five were the deposed incumbents killed.[8]Moreover, as a change-of-government method, the incidence of the coup d’état has declined worldwide, because usually, the threat of one suffices to effect the change of government; the military do not usually assume power, but install a civil leader acceptable to them. The political advantage is the appearance of legitimacy, examples are the collapse of the French Fourth Republic, and the change of government effected in Mauritania, on 3 August 2005, while the president was in Saudi Arabia.
Types
The political scientist Samuel P. Huntington identifies three classes of coup d’état:
- Breakthrough coup d’état: a revolutionary army overthrows a traditional government and creates a new bureaucratic elite. Generally led by mid-level or junior officers. Examples are China in 1911, Bulgaria in 1944, Egypt in 1952, Turkey in 1960, Greece in 1967, Libya in 1969, Portugal in 1974 and Liberia in 1980.
- Guardian coup d’état: the “musical chairs” coup d’état. The stated aim of such a coup is usually improving public order and efficiency, and ending corruption. There usually is no fundamental change to the power structure. Generally, the leaders portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. An early example is the coup d’état by consul Sulla, in 88 B.C., against supporters of Marius inRome, after the latter attempted to strip him of a military command. A contemporary instance is the civilian Prime Minister of PakistanZulfikar Ali Bhutto‘s overthrow by Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, who cited widespread civil disorder and impending civil war as his justification. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the same grounds. Nations with guardian coups can frequently shift back and forth between civilian and military governments. Example countries include Pakistan, Turkey (1971 and 1980), and Thailand. A bloodless coup usually arises from the Guardian coup d’état.
- Veto coup d’état: occurs when the army vetoes the people’s mass participation and social mobilisation in governing themselves. In such a case, the army confronts and suppresses large-scale, broad-based civil opposition, tending to repression and killing, such as the coup d’état in Chile in 1973 against the elected Socialist President Salvador Allende Gossens by the Chilean military. The same happened inArgentina throughout the period 1930-1983. The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the elected National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of a failed veto coup d’état.[citation needed]
A coup d’état is typed according to the military rank of the lead usurper.
- The veto coup d’état and the guardian coup d’état are effected by the army’s commanding officers.
- The breakthrough coup d’état is effected by junior officers (colonels or lower rank) or non-commissioned officers (sergeants). When junior officers or enlisted men so seize power, the coup d’état is a mutiny with grave implications for the organizational and professional integrity of the military.
- In a bloodless coup d’état, the threat of violence suffices to depose the incumbent. In 1889, Brazil became a republic via bloodless coup; in 1999, Pervez Musharraf assumed power in Pakistan via a bloodless coup; and, in 2006, Sonthi Boonyaratglin assumed power inThailand as the leader of the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy.
The self-coup denotes an incumbent government — aided and abetted by the military — assuming extra-constitutional powers. A historical example is President, then Emperor, Louis Napoléon Bonaparte. Modern examples include Alberto Fujimori, in Peru, who, although elected, temporarily suspended the legislature and the judiciary in 1992, becoming an authoritarian ruler, and King Gyanendra‘s assumption of “emergency powers” in Nepal. Another form of self-coup is when a government, having been defeated in an election, refuses to step down.
Resistance to coups d’état
Many coups d’état, even if initially successful in seizing the main centres of state power, are actively opposed by certain segments of society or by the international community. Opposition can take many different forms, including an attempted counter-coup by sections of the armed forces, international isolation of the new regime, and military intervention.
Sometimes opposition takes the form of civil resistance, in which the coup is met with mass demonstrations from the population generally, and disobedience among civil servants and members of the armed forces. Cases in which civil resistance played a significant part in defeating armed coups d’état include: the Kornilov Putsch in Russia in August 1917; the Kapp Putsch in Berlin in March 1920; and the Generals’ Revolt in Algiers in April 1961.[9] The coup in the Soviet Union on 19–21 August 1991 is another case in which civil resistance was part of an effective opposition to a coup: Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, stood on top of a tank in the centre of Moscow and urged people to refuse co-operation with the coup.
Post-military-coup governments
After the coup d’état, the military face the matter of what type of government to establish. In Latin America, it was common for the post-coup government to be led by a junta, a committee of the chiefs of staff of the armed forces. A common form of African post-coup government is the revolutionary assembly, a quasi-legislative body elected by the army. In Pakistan, the military leader typically assumes the title of chiefmartial law administrator.
According to Huntington, most leaders of a coup d’état act under the concept of right orders: they believe that the best resolution of the country’s problems is merely to issue correct orders. This view of government underestimates the difficulty of implementing government policy, and the degree of political resistance to certain correct orders. It presupposes that everyone who matters in the country shares a single, common interest, and that the only question is how to pursue that single, common interest.
Current leaders who assumed power via coups d’état
| Title | Name | Assumed office | Country | Area of the World |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sultan | Qaboos of Oman* | 23 July 1970 |  Oman |
Middle East |
| President | Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo | 3 August 1979 |  Equatorial Guinea |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| President | Blaise Compaoré | 15 October 1987 |  Burkina Faso |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| President | Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir | 30 June 1989 |  Sudan |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| President | Idriss Déby[10][11][12][13][14] | 2 December 1990 |  Chad |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| President | Yahya Jammeh** | 22 July 1994 |  The Gambia |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| Emir | Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani* | 27 June 1995 |  Qatar |
Middle East |
| President | François Bozizé** | 15 March 2003 |  Central African Republic |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| Acting Prime Minister | Frank Bainimarama | 5 December 2006 |  Fiji |
South Pacific |
| President | Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz*** | 6 August 2008 |  Mauritania |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
| President of the High Transitional Authority | Andry Rajoelina | 17 March 2009 |  Madagascar |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
* Monarchs who overthrew their own fathers.
** Both Jammeh and Bozizé were subsequently confirmed in office by apparently free and fair elections.[15][16] The election confirming Jammeh was marked by repression of the free press and the opposition.[17] An opposition leader described the outcome as a “sham”.[17]
*** Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz was subsequently confirmed by a narrow margin in the Mauritanian presidential election, 2009, which were regarded as “satisfactory” by international observers.
Other uses of the term
The term has also been used in a corporate context more specifically as boardroom coup. CEOs that have been sacked by behind-the-scenes maneuvering include Robert Stempel of General Motors[18][19] and John Akers of IBM, in 1992 and 1993, respectively.[20][21]
Steve Jobs attempted management coups twice at Apple Inc.; first in 1985 when he unsuccessfully tried to oust John Sculley and then again in 1997 which successfully forced Gil Amelio to resign.[22][23]
See also
References
- ^ Legal thought in the United States of America under contemporary pressures: Reports from the United States of America on topics of major concern as established for the VIII Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Authors: International Academy of Comparative Law, American Association for the Comparative Study of Law Editors John Newbold Hazard, Wenceslas J. Wagner Publisher: Émile Bruylant, 1970 Length 689 pages p. 509 Quote: “But even if the most laudatory of motivations be assumed, the fact remains that the coup d’etat is a deliberately illegal act of the gravest kind and strikes at the highest level of law and order in society…”
- ^ Coup d’etat: a practical handbook By Edward Luttwak p. 172 Quote: “Clearly the coup is by definition illegal, “
- ^ USAID [dead link]
- ^ Coup d’etat Definition from Auburn U. Quote: A quick and decisive extra-legal seizure of governmental power by a relatively small but highly organized group of political or military leaders…
- ^ Julius Caesar’s civil war, 5 Jan 49 BC.
- ^ “In French “État” is capitalised, for denoting “sovereign political entity””. 66.46.185.79. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ Edward Luttwak, Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, Harvard University Press, 1969, 1980. ISBN 0-674-17547-6.
- ^ George Klay Kieh, Jr. and Pita Ogaba Agbese (eds.), The Military and Politics in Africa, Ashgate Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0754618765, pp. 44–5.
- ^ Adam Roberts, ‘Civil Resistance to Military Coups’, Journal of Peace Research, Oslo, vol. 12, no. 1, 1975, pp. 19-36, covers these and some other cases.
- ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/05
- ^ “BBC News – Chad country profile” . Bbc.co.uk. 2011-05-12. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ “Chad Conflict History – International Crisis Group” . Crisisgroup.org. 1960-08-11. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ “IRIN Africa | CHAD: Idriss Deby, a president under siege | Conflict | Governance” . Irinnews.org. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ “Chad – Idriss Deby, a President Under Siege” . Worldpress.org. 2006-04-19. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ “Gambia, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” . State.gov. 2002-03-04. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ “Central African Republic, 2008” . Freedom House. 2004-05-10. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ a b “The Gambia, 2008” . Freedom House. 2004-05-10. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ Bunkley, Nick (10 May 2011). “Robert C. Stempel Is Dead at 77; Led G.M. During a Troubled Period” . The New York Times.
- ^ Miller, Stephen (11 May 2011). “Engineer Ran GM in Dark Early ’90s” . The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ Black, Larry (27 January 1993). The Independent (London).http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/ibm-fires-akers-and-slashes-dividend-1481080.html .
- ^ [1]
- ^ Seibold, Chris (2011-05-24). “May 24, 1985: Jobs Fails to Oust Sculley” . Apple Matters. Retrieved October 8, 2011.
- ^ “Apple Formally Names Jobs as Interim Chief” . The New York Times (New York). September 17, 1997. Retrieved June 27, 2011.
Bibliography
- Curzio Malaparte, Technique du Coup d’État (Published in French), Paris, 1931
- S.E. Finer, The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics, Pall Mall Press, London, 1962. p. 98.
- D. J. Goodspeed, Six Coups d’État, Viking Press inc., New-York, 1962
- Edward Luttwak, Coup d’état: A practical handbook, Harvard University Press, 1969, 1980. ISBN 0-674-17547-6
- Ken Connor and David Hebditch, How to Stage a Military Coup: From Planning to Execution , Pen and Sword Books Ltd, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84832-503-6
- McGowan, Patrick. 2005. “Coups and Conflict in West Africa, 1955-2004: Part I, Theoretical Perspectives.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 32: pp. 5–23.
- McGowan, Patrick. 2006. “Coups and Conflict in West Africa, 1955-2004: Part II, Empirical Findings.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 32: pp. 234–253.
- Beeson, Mark. 2008. “Civil-Military Relations in Indonesia and the Philippines: Will the Thai Coup Prove Contagious?” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 34: pp. 474–490.
- N’Diaye, Boubacar. 2002. “How Not to Institutionalize Civilian Control: Kenya’s Coup Prevention Strategies, 1964-1997.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 28: pp. 619–640
Anti Deep State Party 