Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Throwdown in Tegucigalpa
It took almost 7 years after the short-lived coup that drove Hugo Chavez from power for journalist Brian Nelson to produce a definitive, nuanced account of what happened that day in April 2002. To understand the motives of the anti-Chavez golpistas, and to understand how power fluidly shifted from the Carmona coup mongers back to the Chavistas, Nelson's book The Silence and The Scorpion (Nation Books) is required reading. A single day after the coup in Honduras, the situation on the ground in Tegucigalpa (and Mangua, Nicaragua, where the deposed president is meeting with Daniel Ortega and Chavez, two former coup leaders) is predictably murky. What we do know, though, is that, unlike with the situation in Iran, the Obama administration quickly made its position on Honduras clear.
According to this AP/CBC story, "Two senior officials in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration told reporters that American diplomats were working to ensure Zelaya's safe return." The coup was "illegal" and "illegitimate," said White House officials, prompting Honduras's acting president Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own political party, to tell reporters that "nobody, not Barack Obama and much less Hugo Chavez, has any right to threaten this country." Chavez, a committed "anti-imperialist," has promised to commit troops to Honduras if his revolutionary comrade is not reinstated as president.
It is difficult to fully agree with Mary Anastasia O'Grady's piece in the Wall Street Journal defending the coup as a necessary step towards to saving Honduran democracy, and I am inclined to side with this unsigned piece on the Foreign Policy blog: "[O]ne need [not] defend Zelaya to argue that sending troops to break into a president's house and put him on a plane out of the country is generally not the best way to protect 'the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.'"
Regardless, O'Grady tidily sums up the events that precipitated the coup:
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
It was the firing of Gen. Vasquez Velasquez (not to be confused with Venezuelan Gen. Vasquez Velasco, who played a pivotal role in that country's 2002 coup) that set events in motion. Velasquez, it seems, is Zelaya's very own Archibald Cox:
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
EJM|6.29.09 @ 7:19PM|#
...and I am inclined to side with this unsigned piece on the
Foreign Policy blog...
It's apparently by FP's Joshua Keating.
The original appears on "Passport" and, for whatever reason, it
got cross-posted on "The Argument".
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 7:22PM|#
OK, now I'm pissed. I was fine with the President saying nothing about Iran, even though we have demonstrable evidence of a violent crackdown on protestors, because it isn't our business, but before all the facts are out on this thing, he's gotta stick his nose in this?
|6.29.09 @ 7:23PM|#
This sounds less like a coup than a sloppy impeachment. It seems clear that Zelaya wasn't following the Honduran constitution in trying to have this referendum. Was their Supreme Court following it when they ordered him arrested? It sure looks to me like Obama is taking the wrong side . . . again.
JB|6.29.09 @ 7:25PM|#
Obama thinks democracy is more important than the rule of
law.
Keep that in mind. Obama doesn't give a flying fuck about
constitutions.
dfd|6.29.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Who cares what The Obama said about the coup? What we really want to know is did one of his personal photographers get a flattering photo of him talking to advisers about the coup for The Obama's Flickr.com account?
jpok|6.29.09 @ 7:54PM|#
"[O]ne need [not] defend Zelaya to argue that sending troops to
break into a president's house and put him on a plane out of the
country is generally not the best way to protect 'the independence
of institutions that keep presidents from becoming
dictators.'"
Why not?
|6.29.09 @ 8:08PM|#
It's not a coup, it's a constitutional crisis apparently caused
by a populist president who doesn't want to relinquish power in
accordance with the law.
Obama earned some respect from me over the Iran thing. Now he's
losing it by reflexively backing Zelaya.
|6.29.09 @ 8:13PM|#
"[O]ne need [not] defend Zelaya to argue that sending troops to break into a president's house and put him on a plane out of the country is generally not the best way to protect 'the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.'"
The best way to keep a politician from becoming a dictator is
execution of said politician. If Zelaya returns, the military (who
appear to be following the damned law as best they can) might reach
that very conclusion.
|6.29.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Seems to me that the biggest issue here is that it was the military that did the arresting. If it had been the Honduran version of the FBI, everything would have been legal and appropriate. However, in a region that has been historically plagued by military coups, having the military subdue a president, even one acting in a unconstitutional and illegal manner, complicates matters.
|6.29.09 @ 8:42PM|#
Not that it's any of our government's business either way, but I'm curious what American opponents of the coup think the Hondurans should have done to enforce the rule of law (ie, the Honduran constitution) in this situation. Or, as is more likely, whether they think the rule of law should take a back seat to democracy and stability or some such nonsense.
|6.29.09 @ 8:44PM|#
If it had been the Honduran version of the FBI, everything
would have been legal and appropriate.
Even the American version of the FBI has neither the independence
nor the firepower necessary to arrest the President in such
circumstances, without support from the military.
|6.29.09 @ 8:57PM|#
Even the American version of the FBI has neither the independence nor the firepower necessary to arrest the President in such circumstances, without support from the military.
No, to take down the President you need Jack Bauer.
SIV|6.29.09 @ 9:00PM|#
The best way to keep a politician from becoming a dictator
is execution of said politician.
J sub D offers the only substantial criticism of the Honduran
military's actions.They should have dropped Zelaya off in Costa
Rica without landing the plane.
"nobody, not Barack Obama and much less Hugo Chavez, has any
right to threaten this country."
The new president is off to a good start calling out the other
leftist/populist tyrants in the hemisphere.
|6.29.09 @ 9:03PM|#
Listening to what facts we can gather from news reports, I think
Honduras did the right thing. This guy was shaping up to be another
Chavez, and he intended to hang on to power past his time.
That's breakin' the rules. ALL of the other branches of government
decided to stop him, including his OWN PARTY, and they got rid of
him with a minimum of violence and fuss.
What's not to like? This is not a coup, it is a constitutional
crisis. I think our president has trouble distinguishing friend
from foe.
Iran is a tyranny. The Iranian protesters deserved encouragement,
and their government deserves disdain. Honduras deserves our
support, and their president deserves to retire in Chavez's guest
house out back.
|6.29.09 @ 9:49PM|#
BTW, Congress did voted to removed him from office. The
congressional vote to put the next person in line of succession
(President of Congress) into interim President was unanimous.
He was impeached by both Congress and Supreme Court. The army was
following legal instruction to remove him from office.
|6.29.09 @ 9:51PM|#
No, to take down the President you need Jack
Bauer.
Only William Shatner
can stop him!
|6.29.09 @ 9:52PM|#
This is not a coup, it is a constitutional crisis. I think
our president has trouble distinguishing friend from
foe.
Honor among thieves heads of
state.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.29.09 @ 10:00PM|#
Isn't having the U.S. immediately chime in with a strong
response to an event in a Latin American country's internal affairs
supposed to be the whole problem with our regional image?
Wasn't B.O.'s whole stupid shtick supposed to be walking back the
Monroe Doctrine and respecting the sovereignty and "equality" of
the countries in this hemisphere (cf his OAS routine)?
So why the fuck do you immediately insert yourself into this issue?
Why not wait a week to see how the conventional wisdom shakes out,
like with every other event B.O. responds to? And if you're gonna
get involved, why do so for the side seemingly contrary to the rule
of law, regional political development and American
interests?
Seriously I'm just confused here.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.29.09 @ 10:03PM|#
I mean is there some kind of "wrongheaded like a fox" angle I'm not seeing?
smartass sob|6.29.09 @ 10:09PM|#
Honor among thieves heads of state.
Thieves of state - you had it right the first time.
Shocked Fox|6.29.09 @ 10:30PM|#
As a member of genus Vulpes, I take umbrage at that remark. We
are not retarded in general.
Well, except for those twerpy kit foxes. Trust me, the rest of us
hold them in as much contempt as you do.
|6.29.09 @ 10:48PM|#
So why the fuck do you immediately insert yourself into this
issue?
Because you can't get enough Chavez cock?
You want to impress all the kids that wear Che t-shirts?
You think that democracy only counts when it goes your way?
|6.29.09 @ 10:55PM|#
"Retarded like a fox" may work, Necrotizante.
"Crazy like a retarded fox."
We're trying to weed them out, Naga, but some of these retards are
extremely clever.
|6.29.09 @ 11:17PM|#
Obama's comments were unwise - like most of the commenters here,
I would prefer to see him abstain from commenting on the situation
there beside the general platitudes about democracy, nonviolence,
etc. Its hard to determine who is right - in a healthy democracy,
the military would not be removing leaders from power; at the same
time, in a healthy democracy, edicts issued by the Supreme Court
would be obeyed by said leaders.
What's odd is Moynihan's contention that, on Iran, Obama "didn't
make his position clear." Non-intervention isn't an "unclear
position" - it is an easily understood standing of principle, and
one that Obama has kept (with some understandable escalation of
rhetoric - Tehran's crackdown has been genuinely horrifying) and
one I hope Obama doesn't deviate from.
|6.29.09 @ 11:28PM|#
Not that it's any of our government's business either way,
but I'm curious what American opponents of the coup think the
Hondurans should have done to enforce the rule of law (ie, the
Honduran constitution) in this situation.
Exhausted every other legal option before doing this.
The guy's term is almost up (there's a new election in November).
The constitution can not be amended by a referendum the way Zelaya
tried to do. If he stuck around after his term was up it would be
indisputably a usurpation of power, and they would have a much
stronger case for removing him.
They also could have held peaceful protests in favor of the rule of
law - and brought the world's attention to the fact that this guy
was engaged in an unconstitutional power grab. Then the world would
know not to accept Zelaya as legitimate - and they could put
pressure on him to back down.
BTW, Congress did voted to removed him from office. The
congressional vote to put the next person in line of succession
(President of Congress) into interim President was
unanimous.
They voted to remove him or they vote against allowing this
referendum on repealing term limits (which would mean he leaves in
a few months anyway when his term expires)? If it is the former
then I need to ask for your source.
The Angry Optimist|6.29.09 @ 11:43PM|#
the vote for removal came yesterday, after his unofficial removal. the Congress did vote unanimously, and that was in today's New York Times
|6.29.09 @ 11:59PM|#
Fascitis Necrotizante, it looks pretty simple to me: the more anti-American a leader is (Iran, Venezuela, Honduras, etc.), the more we have to be nice to them. That's "diplomacy." On the other hand, pro-American leaders (UK, France, Columbia, Canada, etc.), because they lean toward the country that causes all the problems of the world, should be taken for granted, if not snubbed or insulted.
The Angry Optimist|6.30.09 @ 12:04AM|#
look, the Administration did the "right thing" with respect to
Iran because the facts on the ground weren't clear, and upped the
rhetoric when things got violent. But the President calls this "not
legal", even though Hilldawg isn't on board with that?
He let his mouth get away from him this time.
|6.30.09 @ 12:32AM|#
the vote for removal came yesterday, after his
unofficial removal. the Congress did vote unanimously, and
that was in today's New York Times
I see. Well thats something, although the order of events is
problematic.
The Angry Optimist|6.30.09 @ 12:44AM|#
well, sure, but unless you're going to say that the Supreme Court and the Congress in that nation were all in on the coup, it's not really proper to call it a "coup". 2/3 branches of the government = the government. Calling it a coup is just...wrong.
|6.30.09 @ 12:55AM|#
Yeah... when presidential defiance of the law gets to the point of leading a mob in a criminal act, perhaps letting the men with guns resolve matters their way isn't the worst possible option.
JB|6.30.09 @ 2:25AM|#
leading a mob in a criminal act
Remember Obama is saying that's all fine and dandy. Very scary
considering the mob of brain-dead Obama voters out there.
Thankfully we all know how to deal with zombies.
|6.30.09 @ 3:35AM|#
Obama shits on our constitution daily....why should he care
about the one in Honduras?
Lets just hope our Supreme Court does not rule against our own
little socialist dictator.
|6.30.09 @ 4:34AM|#
Is there one citizen of a Latin-American nation whether
left-wing like Venezuela, center-left like Chile, left-libertarian
like Panama was with Torrijos, center-right as it will be with
Martinelli, right-wing like Colombia, far-right like Peru, or
farmer-populist like El Salvador, who's commenting on this
subject?
Just curious.
I do. I live in Panama. I happen to respect Ron Paul a lot and
agree with a lot of his version of classical liberalism. What I've
never heard from him is this reflexive chest-pounding Sergeant Nick
Penis warrior bullshit that I'm reading here.
If you're for free minds and free markets, stop telling other
countries what to do. Obama's a bastard for that. And when reading
about Honduras (and VEN, ECU, BOL, BRZ....) I feel like I'm reading
the New Republic or Commentary instead of REASON.
Abdul|6.30.09 @ 7:03AM|#
Seems to me that the biggest issue here is that it was the
military that did the arresting. If it had been the Honduran
version of the FBI, everything would have been legal and
appropriate. However, in a region that has been historically
plagued by military coups, having the military subdue a president,
even one acting in a unconstitutional and illegal manner,
complicates matters.
In Honduras, the law requires the Military to oversee elections.
The military in Honduras is generally a better respected instituion
than in other Latin American countries, and they're seen as fair
and impartial election referrees who can usually outgun anyone who
tries to corrupt the process.
When Zelaya sent his rent-a-mob into the barracks to grab the
ballots, it's roughly equivalent to George Bush sending the College
Republicans (only picture them meaner and not wearing Dockers) to
count Ohio's ballots. Zelaya was taking a page out of Hugo Chavez's
book. Hondurans, who have traditionally enjoyed a fairly positive
relationship with us Yankees, didn't want to go down the Chavez
route.
This "coup" is also different than the revolving door dictatorships
that used to happen in the 80's. The General didn't install himself
in power. He handed the reigns over to the constitutional second in
command, a member of Zelaya's own party.
Ben|6.30.09 @ 8:07AM|#
Chavez is being played for the fool here. Obama, despite all the
rhetoric, is no doubt thrilled to have the President ousted since
it is what his corporate backers wanted. I wouldn't be surprised to
find out in 10 years or so that the CIA was in on this. Chavez is
too stupid to figure it out, and so is Obama's moronic "liberal"
base.
The fact he isn't doing anything but talking says it all. He
privatley approves of the coup.
Ben|6.30.09 @ 8:13AM|#
You know who also extended his term in office in an illegal
manner?
Uribe of Colombia. Funny we don't hear anything about that! Mostly
because he's a good little corporate stooge, so he's "democratic"
and follows the "rule of law".
Spoonman|6.30.09 @ 9:10AM|#
The Houston Chronicle apparently thought better of printing my
letter on this subject, so:
I am confused by President Obama's and the OAS's condemnation of the coup in Honduras. It is clear from the article that former President Zelaya disobeyed the orders of the other two branches of government in pursuit of his goal, much as Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court in his desire to send the Indians on the Trail of Tears. When is it proper to oust a democratically elected leader, if not when he begins ignoring checks on his power? When he begins punishing the media for opposing his goals, like John Adams? When he begins torturing people, like Bush? Which is more important, respecting a vote or keeping a free country?
The Honduran Constitution clearly states that attempting to
interfere with the orderly change in presidents is treason, and the
military played its proper constitutional role in removing the
guy.
|6.30.09 @ 9:10AM|#
Given the history of banana republics, the paranoia of the Honduran congress was probably justified. BO is (hopefully) trying to pull the rug out from Chavez's "righteous indignation" by agreeing with him while affecting no change to the result. Atleast I certainly hope thats what he's doing.
Art-P.O.G.|6.30.09 @ 9:25AM|#
Hey, Ben...
regarding your 8:07 post.
Link? Seems like an awful lot of speculation there.
Ben|6.30.09 @ 9:31AM|#
It is speculation based on the past hstory of American actions
in the hemisphere. Remember the Chilean 9/11 (1972)?
What we have is the right wing of the Property Party in power now
instead of the far-right wing of the property party, but they're
backed by the same corporate interests/dollars and equally
imperialist.
Ben|6.30.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Obama, IOW, is just a new smiling black face pasted over the decaying system of Corporate Capitalism, the same way Gorbachev was a smiley face for State Socialism. I expect he will meet a similar end as Gorbachev did.
Fluffy|6.30.09 @ 9:36AM|#
Exhausted every other legal option before doing
this.
Since the President had led his supporters in an attack on a
military base to seize the Venezuelan ballots, in defiance of an
order by the Honduran Supreme Court, hadn't he by that action
created a state of insurrection?
Because I'm all for exhausting all the legal options - but if the
other guy has already crossed the "Fort Sumter" line, as it were,
then I find it hard to argue that the military and Supreme Court
can't respond.
Alan Vanneman|6.30.09 @ 10:10AM|#
"What we do know, though, is that, unlike with the situation in
Iran, the Obama administration quickly made its position on
Honduras clear."
That's what Honduras gets for not having an atomic bomb. It's not
like I didn't warn them.
|6.30.09 @ 10:38AM|#
So I'm guessing that if Richard Nixon, instead of resigning and going away quietly, had escalated his subversion of the constitution and clung on to office by his fingernails, perhaps by shutting down Congress to prevent his impeachment, then Obama and Hillary (even from her position on the staff of the Special Prosecutor's office) would have whined about "proper procedures" and objected if the military had removed Nixon in order to restore the constitution.
|6.30.09 @ 11:03AM|#
This is why it's important to put people who (1) aren't batshit
insane and (2) have lots of experience in the White House. Although
the latter means corruption, 9 out of 10 times, it also means a
little more wisdom about avoiding constitutional crises. Even Nixon
knew that he had to go after a while.
The Supreme Court goes to great and often absurd lengths to avoid
constitutional crises.
ChrisO|6.30.09 @ 11:29AM|#
I say we mind our own damned business and let the Hondurans worry about theirs.
|6.30.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Obama earned some respect from me over the Iran thing. Now
he's losing it by reflexively backing Zelaya.
The one common thread to Obama's reaction to Iran and Honduras is
that he never met an anti-American authoritarian he didn't
like.
The state of play today in Honduras is that the former President
has been legally impeached and removed from office per the
constitution, his successor has been appointed per the
constitution, the elections for this November are still on
schedule, the constitutional orders of the judiciary and
legislature have been carried out. Granted, their timing was off by
a couple of days, but in the scheme of things that's trivial.
If that's a coup, its the god-damnedest coup I've ever seen.
hammeredHead|6.30.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Perhaps when they are done, the Honduran military can come to
the US and spread freedom and democracy.
Seriously though, I am amazed at how well they followed the law. I
wonder if a similar problem in the US is handled as well. I guess
we will find out when BO attempts to go for his third.
Les|6.30.09 @ 12:49PM|#
The one common thread to Obama's reaction to Iran and
Honduras is that he never met an anti-American authoritarian he
didn't like.
Look, I loathe Obama as much as the next crank, but since when have
U.S. Presidents supported any authoritarian government (besides our
own) for the right reasons?
The state of play today in Honduras is that the former
President has been legally impeached and removed from office per
the constitution, his successor has been appointed per the
constitution, the elections for this November are still on
schedule, the constitutional orders of the judiciary and
legislature have been carried out.
Is it really part of the Honduran impeachment process (in their
constitution) that the President is to be forced to leave the
country?
|6.30.09 @ 1:01PM|#
If you're for free minds and free markets, stop telling
other countries what to do. Obama's a bastard for that. And when
reading about Honduras (and VEN, ECU, BOL, BRZ....) I feel like I'm
reading the New Republic or Commentary instead of
REASON.
Sorry i like i am sure most here don't know anything about south
America.....I just like bashing Obama and could care less who is
also bashing Obama...so long as they are bashing him.
To be clear mostly Americans read and post comments here....so you
should expect them to be slanted by a particular perspective.
But enough about the comments...did you have any problem with what
Michael C. Moynihan wrote?
If you didn't then complaining about the comments is pretty
worthless.
Also what is wrong with New Republic or Commentary? The are slanted
to conservatives so what? Reason is slanted to
libertarians....nothing wrong with slant.
Hell if you brought up gay marriage or drug legalization you might
have to say "I would expect comments like this in Mother Jones not
REASON"
Sorry sometimes libertarians agree with conservatives and sometimes
we agree with progressives...get over it.
Paul|6.30.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Anyone catch NPR's coverage of this issue?
When NPR first started reporting this, then followed up with
another 'detailed' report, all of my warning flags were going
up.
According to NPR, it's quite simple: Zelaya is a progressive, who
only wants to help the poor. And these old curmudgeon Oligarchs
just want the status quo and are just a bunch of big fat
meanies.
|6.30.09 @ 3:05PM|#
I notice the comments section of the stories at NPR.org have it
right. People, NPR fans no less, are not buying the lies coming
from NPR/Obama.
(almost)Unbelievable bullshit from the U.N.
UN supports gradae A asshat
"The world body adopted a resolution by acclamation calling on all
192 UN member states not to recognize any government in Honduras
other than Zelaya's."
Fine, only recognize Zelaya's government - too bad he was
constituitionally removed from it...
"The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday condemned the
ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and called for his
immediate return to office."
Nothing wrong with having a home office...
"Also Tuesday, the OAS called an emergency meeting for later in the
day to consider suspending Honduras under an agreement meant to
prevent the sort of coups that for generations made Latin America a
spawning ground of military dictatorships."
What a bunch of useless fucks. Actually, they are worse than
useless. They want to avoid the potential for military dictarships
by supporting violation of a country's laws that ousted a president
that was working towards an actual dictatorship. The military
prevented a coup, they did not launch one.
Fuck the U.N., President Ayers, and the horse they rode in on.
|6.30.09 @ 3:20PM|#
This is reasuring though...
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6660&edition=2&ttl=20090630201658
The comments that is, not the BBC question "should Honduras change
the constitution".
Les|6.30.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Fine, only recognize Zelaya's government - too bad he was
constituitionally removed from it...
Is it in the Honduran constitution that the President, if found to
be in violation of the law, will be forced into exile without a
trial?
They want to avoid the potential for military dictarships by
supporting violation of a country's laws that ousted a president
that was working towards an actual dictatorship.
Are the people who are condemning the forced exile of the President
voicing support for the President's illegal actions?
|6.30.09 @ 4:34PM|#
I found this opinion to be interesting... He concluded "...Mr.
Chávez, the unlikely champion of Jeffersonian democracy in Latin
America."
Oh the irony.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30Vargasllosa.html
I'd also like to echo bigbigslacker's sentiment:
Fuck the UN.
|6.30.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Is it in the Honduran constitution that the President, if
found to be in violation of the law, will be forced into exile
without a trial?
Are the people who are condemning the forced exile of the President
voicing support for the President's illegal actions?
Les, long answer got eaten by the server squirels.
The shorter, better answer is "no" and "some are, some
aren't".
Why does it matter? He isn't the president any more. You can
question the day one tactics, but as of day two he is history. The
UN isn't pushing just to end his exile - they want him returned to
office. Too bad, so sad.
I'm suspicious of any leaders who would defend other leaders that
were ousted ofter getting caught trying to subvert the
constitutions they took an oath to protect. Anal rape be upon them
all.
Les|6.30.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Why does it matter? He isn't the president any more. You can
question the day one tactics, but as of day two he is
history.
It matters because even if a President subverts the constitution,
it doesn't make it legitimate to subvert the constitution to get
rid of him, especially when there are constitutional ways of doing
it.
So, I think it's perfectly legitimate to condemn the government for
unconstitutionally ousting their President, while at the same time
condemning the President for attempting to subvert the
constitution.
But, yes, I do agree, fuck the U.N..
|6.30.09 @ 4:56PM|#
But, yes, I do agree, fuck the U.N..
I'm glad we can all agree on something once in a while.
JW Gacy|6.30.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Les: try to keep up with the class.
Had Zelaya chosen to stay, he would have stood trial. Nobody on
this forum thinks that being forced to leave is the same as
standing trial. You drew that idiotic inference all on your own. As
already referenced, Zelaya was guilty of high treason. The
traditional penalty for treason is death. Hence, you give the man a
chance to leave, and you don't have to execute a former
president.
JW Gacy|6.30.09 @ 5:02PM|#
So, I guess the question was how voluntary his leaving was. I
assume if he'd wanted a trial, he could have had one. But I don't
see what his motivation would be. All the whining about how his
resignation was pre-written for him, how he was escorted out of the
country by the military, etc. seems like pointless whining and
nitpicking.
Leaving was his only chance of not ending up with a bullet in his
head.
Les|6.30.09 @ 6:05PM|#
JW Gacy, it's funny that you think unconstitutionally forcing
someone out of the country instead of charging and trying them for
the crimes they're accused of is "pointless whining and nitpicking"
(due process is so pointless, yes?) while
assuming he didn't want a trial because (assuming again)
he would have been executed.
And you said my questions were "idiotic."
You big silly.
priorities|6.30.09 @ 6:11PM|#
I just want to know how this all impacts the price of
prostitutes in Comayagua?
All this other stuff is just armchair politics.
|6.30.09 @ 6:29PM|#
http://www.end22.com/serrano
Hmmmm...maybe this has something to do with something that has
something to do with something
|6.30.09 @ 9:24PM|#
Since the President had led his supporters in an attack on a
military base to seize the Venezuelan ballots, in defiance of an
order by the Honduran Supreme Court, hadn't he by that action
created a state of insurrection?
Because I'm all for exhausting all the legal options - but if the
other guy has already crossed the "Fort Sumter" line, as it were,
then I find it hard to argue that the military and Supreme Court
can't respond.
It is my understanding that the mob members who broke into the base
to try to get the ballots were not carrying weapons and did not
physically attack soldiers. So I'd say their actions were more like
breaking & entering and vandalism than "insurrection".
And I've learned since posting this that the Honduran congress
voted to legally remove him from office. Assuming that they did
this without coercion, and in a manner consistent with the
constitution, then that supports the idea that Zelaya no longer
rightfully holds the office of President. Still, it seems like it
would have been nice to do that before the physical
removal. Doing it in the wrong order gives the appearance that
Congress may have been illegitimately pressured to vote as it did
(even if that is not the case).
Tangentially, I wonder why I didn't hear about Zelaya's attempts to
stand for re-election despite Congressional term limits until the
military removed him. If his opponents had made their case to the
public (with protests for example) before earlier, I think there
would be more sympathy for them. As it stands, the first thing most
people heard about this is "military coop removes elected leader in
small Latin American country".
|6.30.09 @ 11:09PM|#
Is it in the Honduran constitution that the President, if
found to be in violation of the law, will be forced into exile
without a trial?
Usually when the Supreme Court hears argument then rules on
something people call it a trial....i guess left wing nut jobs such
as yourself don't.
|6.30.09 @ 11:16PM|#
So Zelaya gets the boot courtesy of the Supreme Court, the
Congress and HIS OWN PARTY - but he's still legit, at least
according to some AP hack (and every half-wit lefty) because he's
got the backing of Honduras' poor.
Hey assholes, before Zelaya buddied up to Chavez, he was (and still
is) one of the country's wealthy landowners. If he wants to do land
reform why doesn't he start with his own?
Les|7.1.09 @ 3:44AM|#
Usually when the Supreme Court hears argument then rules on
something people call it a trial....i guess left wing nut jobs such
as yourself don't.
It's funny how asking simple yes/no questions are enough to
infuriate knee-jerk ideologues into accusing you of being something
you're not.
(I may be a "nut job," but I'm no leftist!)
So, Mr. Corning, was the President found guilty of a crime and
sentenced to be deported? Ah, but there's that whole "due process"
thing again.
It's what our Founding Fathers valued most and what people like you
and
this person value least of all.
You two are like peas in a pod.
|7.1.09 @ 8:02PM|#
"Is it in the Honduran constitution that the President, if found
to be in violation of the law, will be forced into exile without a
trial?"
As a matter of fact, Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution
declares that anyone who attempts to extend the presidential term
or even proposes to change the constitution to allow it instantly
forfeits their office. There is no mention of a trial.
Here is the Article followed by a translation.
Political Constitution of Honduras of 1982
----------------------------------------------
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del
Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la
República.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como
aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de
inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán
inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función
pública.
Article 239 - Any citizen who has exercised the authority of Chief
Executive cannot be President or Vicepresident of the
Republic.
Whoever violates this requirement or attempts its alteration, as
well as those who aid directly or indirectly, immediately are
relieved of the exercise of their respective positions and are
disqualified for 10 years from holding any public office.
Craig
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245