The Long Arm of the Mossad

As the buffoonish Chavez acolyte Manuel Zelaya camps out in the Brazilian embassy, the Wall Street Journal reports that "roving bands of his supporters [have] set up roadblocks around the capital, smashed windows, and engaged in sporadic battles with police and army troops." As the Wall Street Journal Europe observed, the rigged elections in Iran and the subsequent murder of pro-democracy protesters produced little reaction in the European Union—it was "too early" for such a decision, according to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt—but Brussels swiftly applied economic sanctions on the new government in Honduras, while recently lifting diplomatic sanctions against the Cuban dictatorship. And now Zelaya, taking a page from fellow nutter Kwame Ture's playbook, is accusing the Israelis (!) of poisoning him with radiation. The Miami Herald reports:

It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

"We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him….

Zelaya was deposed at gunpoint on June 28 and slipped back into his country on Monday, just two days before he was scheduled to speak before the United Nations. He sought refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, where Zelaya said he is being subjected to toxic gases and radiation that alter his physical and mental state.

The Obama administration too has turned the screws on the de facto government in Tegucigalpa, which forced Zelaya out of the country after his administration ignored a supreme court decision halting a plebiscite on extending term limits:

The U.S. State Department sought to tighten the pressure on the Micheletti government last week by canceling $30 million in non-humanitarian aid, revoking the visas of political leaders who supported Zelaya's ouster and seeming to close the door on recognizing the result of the Nov. 29 presidential and congressional elections.

The U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla in Honduras; more than half of Honduras' trade is with the U.S. The U.S. also has a military base in Honduras, the brightest Hondurans study in the U.S. and Hondurans speak English as a point of pride.

Comments

[jtuf]

Demonstrators affiliated with No Mas Chavez are across the street from the UN headquarters today. Some of their signs called for Obama to butt out of Honduran politics.

[Oz]

I'm just embarrassed as an American is all I can say. It's truly disheartening.

[jtuf]

Perhaps we should plan a money bomb to help Hunduras. Does any one know a good charity to donate to and a symbolic date?

[Brandybuck]

Obama: Sticking up for socialist thugs since 2009!

[PR]

if mossad can drop a burning iranian awacs on top of khomeini's cadaver, is there anything they can't do?

[R C Dean]

Good lord. They've preemptively declared the next round of elections as illegitimate? Why?

Oh, I know, the entire Honduran exercise is an excuse for the lefties in the administration to demonstrate their fides to Castro, Chavez, and their ilk. They're all flashing back to their days of cheering the Sandanistas and chanting "no pasaran" outside the chancellor's house.

I mean, hard-left kleptocracies in America are so crucial to our national security.

The whole thing makes me want to puke.

[Abdul]

Honduras is one of the few reliable US allies in Latin America.

I guess they fucked up by trusting us.

[Anti]

Obama: Trashing allies and supporting authoritarian dictatorships!

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Isn't it the left that is always denouncing imperialism?

[2yellowdogs]

You can always count on the Obama administration...they never miss a chance to support another leftist or Chavez wanna-be somewhere in the world.

[JB]

Not only does Obama put actual crazies in his administration, he supports them when they try to become dictators of countries.

Sick.

[Geotpf]

Wasn't this guy the legitimately elected president of the country and overthrown in a coup? Just checking.

[Tulpa]

The U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla in Honduras

RACIST!

And weightist, for that matter!

[Tulpa]

Wasn't this guy the legitimately elected president of the country and overthrown in a coup? Just checking.

He was not "overthrown in a coup", he was legitimately removed from office by impeachment and conviction in accordance with the Honduran constitution.

Thanks for checking, to the extent you were sincere about that.

[Tulpa]

JB, what do you want to bet that, if the pressure being applied to Honduras is successful, Van Jones gets hired by Zelaya's govt as a 'thank you' for Obama's support.

[Rich]

"Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

Here, too, we get "tortured with high-frequency radiation" -- but it's the network news.

[Geotpf]

Tulpa-Not according to the Miami Herald linked above. It refers to him being ousted in a coup several times.

Has any other government of any nation, or the United Nations, recoginized the current government as legitimate? Thought not.

Just because he's a leftist doesn't make ousting him in a coup a thing one should support.

[EJM]

No word about either Madagascar or Guinea(-Conakry)? 😉

[?]

This thread needs a Gefilte Ray Burst.

[John Thacker]

Geotpf, it does say "coup" twice, in sentences that are giving Zelaya's side of the story. It also has this paragraph:

Micheletti took Zelaya's place after the military, executing a Supreme Court arrest warrant, burst into Zelaya's house and forced him into exile. The country's military, congress, Supreme Court and economic leaders have backed the ouster, arguing that Zelaya was bent on conducting an illegal plebiscite that they feared would ultimately lead to his reelection.

[PapayaSF]

Geotpf, if you've only been following the mainstream media, you'd think that. But Zelaya was trying to have an unconstitutional referendum that would have allowed him to stay in office beyond the legal term limit. The Supreme Court and the Army said no and tossed him out, all legally. Afterwards they found computers with election "results" that showed Zelaya winning. He's just another Chavez wannabe whose illegal power-grab was thwarted.

[John Thacker]

Just because he's a leftist doesn't make ousting him in a coup a thing one should support.

That the Supreme Court and Legislature should both disagree with the Executive is a constitutional crisis. Would you care to give a reason why you'd support the Executive over the other two branches? The history of Latin America makes it clear that overreaching by Executives (US allies, US enemies, and those in between) has been one of its worst recurring problems.

No, I don't support him. Just as just because Uribe has been good for Colombia and a US ally doesn't meant that I think his attempt to repeal term limits and seek a third term is a good idea, either.

Uribe's attempt, though, doesn't seem to be explicitly barred by the Colombian constitution, and is (foolishly) being supported by the Legislature.

[Geotpf]

Nowhere in that does it say he was impeached, which is the current theory tossed around. There was no legal impeachment proceeding. He was simply removed from office at gunpoint.

He was elected president. He tried to hold a possible illegal refreredum making it possible for him to be re-elected to an additional term. Instead of simply refusing to carry out that election, the army overthrew him in a coup.

[Barack Obama]

"He's just another Chavez wannabe whose illegal power-grab was thwarted."

So you can't help but love the guy.

[John Thacker]

The big trend in Latin America has been Executives pushing to remove term limits, whether left or right. Chavez, Morales, Correa, Uribe, Ortega. It's the lust for power and viewing oneself as indispensible.

It seems like one thing that Lula has some sense on.

[Tulpa]

Geotpf, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was--and still is--referred to as a "right-wing coup attempt" in many areas of the mainstream media. If you're going to outsource your thinking, I'd recommend giving it to Indian journalists rather than Americans. They'll do it for half as much and don't take coffee breaks.

[Geotpf]

That is, the solution was to prevent the referendum from happening, or invalidating it in court, not removing this guy from office.

He seems to be popular, and was elected in a free and fair election. Needless to say, removing him in this fashion basically guarantees an unstable government or civil war.

[John Thacker]

Instead of simply refusing to carry out that election, the army overthrew him in a coup.

The army "execut[ed] a Supreme Court arrest warrant," according to the article. And the Honduran Congress had previously voted that plebiscite illegal. And Zelaya said that his own people were going to run the election if the army refused. Please address that issue, Geotpf.

What do you do when the President refuses to abide by laws pass by Congress and the orders of the Supreme Court? It provokes a constitutional crisis.

[roarkrex09]

Geotpf -

Actually, a secret order was issued by the Supreme Court to the military to remove him from office, and then a special session of the National Assembly was convened to appoint a new President.
Hardly a bunch of footloose commandos carrying out the orders of a cabal of evil right wing Generals....

[John Thacker]

That is, the solution was to prevent the referendum from happening, or invalidating it in court, not removing this guy from office.

The Honduran Congress voted that it was illegal, the Supreme Court invalidated it, the army refused to run it, and Zelaya said he would do it anyway.

In addition, if you read the Honduran Constitution, it says that any President that makes an attempt to remove term limits is immediately ineligible for office.

[Geotpf]

If there was some sort of court proceeding prior to the impeachment, that would be one thing. Nobody stuck a gun in Bill Clinton's face and dragged him out of the White House. He was impeached in a formal hearing, and happened to win.

In any case, name a single foreign government or official agency (United Nations, etc.) who thinks the manner in which Zelaya was removed was legitimate.

[Zeb]

No, it was not a coup. The Honduran constitution required him to be removed from office (I don't know if impeachment is the right term or not). A coup is an extra-constitutional removal of an executive. This was all done according to the law.

[John Thacker]

The solution was to remove him from office because the Honduran Constitution mandates removing him from office.

He disobeyed an order of the Supreme Court and the vote of Congress. What can be done in such a situation. "Needless to say," when the President openly and flagrantly does so in this fashion, it "basically guarantees an unstable government or civil war."

[Tulpa]

The big trend in Latin America has been Executives pushing to remove term limits, whether left or right. Chavez, Morales, Correa, Uribe, Ortega. It's the lust for power and viewing oneself as indispensible.

Luckily we've never had any US President like that.

[Pro Libertate]

The Honduran constitution has some super-sensitive provisions to forestall a strong man taking power. That's why the administration's position makes no sense.

[a]

Geotpf, if you've only been following the mainstream media, you'd think that. But Zelaya was trying to have an unconstitutional referendum that would have allowed him to stay in office beyond the legal term limit.

The same way Bloomberg did in NYC?

[Tulpa]

In any case, name a single foreign government or official agency (United Nations, etc.) who thinks the manner in which Zelaya was removed was legitimate.

Governments and "official" NGOs aren't a good target for outsourcing your thinking either. Cheap is the name of the game man, seriously.

[John Thacker]

If there was some sort of court proceeding prior to the impeachment, that would be one thing. Nobody stuck a gun in Bill Clinton's face and dragged him out of the White House. He was impeached in a formal hearing, and happened to win.

President Clinton agreed to follow the Supreme Court's rulings and to attend the impeachment proceedings. If Clinton had just refused to participate and not acknowledged the proceedings at all, what then? Do you say, "Oh, the President won't play along with Congress and the Supreme Court, I guess there's no way to remove him from office?"

If the President doesn't submit to the trial, there's no way to remove him. Nixon should have thought of that. He'd still be in office today if we played by Geotpf's rules.

[John Thacker]

Luckily we've never had any US President like that.

Well, we were better off, because, among other things:
1) He was only violating an informal (but wise) tradition;
2) Support quickly built to make it a formal rule;
3) His own party refused to go along with the Court-packing plan too.

But yes, it's a natural temptation of power.

[EJM]

The big trend in Latin America has been Executives pushing to remove term limits, whether left or right. Chavez, Morales, Correa, Uribe, Ortega. It's the lust for power and viewing oneself as indispensible.

It's also arguably a trend in Africa. (See, in particular, the "Africa's Third-Term Winners and Losers" infobox on the second page.)

[hammeredHead]

This has really turned out to be way to much trouble for Honduras. Why did they not just shoot him or drop him off in Costa Rica without landing the plane?

[Tulpa]

One wonders, would the concept of executive term limits have ever seen the light of day had George Washington kept running for president until he died? The answer is by no means clear.

Furthermore, if he'd done as he wanted and not run for reelection, would one term rather than two have been the norm?

[Joe M]

Luckily we've never had any US President like that.

Anyone ever wonder how different U.S. history would be if Calvin Coolidge had decided to run again in 1928? How would he have handled the crash of 1929? Better than Hoover did, I suspect. What a shame.

[Random Dude]

"Nowhere in that does it say he was impeached, which is the current theory tossed around. There was no legal impeachment proceeding. He was simply removed from office at gunpoint."

Geotpf:

You are wrong about this. The vote to remove him in Congress was unanimous, however they have don't have the formality of impeachment procedures in their Constitution as we do. The Supreme Court also unanimously ruled that he was in violation of the Honduran Constitution, which makes it treason to even attempt to change the term limit laws. Because the country has no vice-president, a member of his own political party, a civilian, was appointed to the presidency. The Supreme Court is given the authority to use the military in the Honduran Constitution.

However, if you don't believe me, perhaps the Congressional Research Service could change your mind:

[Geotpf]

Lemme copy a bit from the Wikipedia article on this:

No foreign governments have recognized the new government and many of them have described the events as a coup d'?tat.[14] The United Nations, the Organization of American States,[15] the United States, and the European Union condemned the removal of Zelaya as a military coup. The OAS suspended Honduras on Saturday, 4 July, after the caretaker government refused to reinstate President Zelaya.[16][17] In response, the military's chief lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, stated, "In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there was a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us." Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho has begun an investigation into why Zelaya was removed from Honduras by force instead of being charged in court.[18]

My argument is that he should have been charged in court instead of being removed by force. The fact that he was removed by force makes it a coup, period.

[John Thacker]

Another odd thing is that the Honduran Constitution actually does not have a separate process for impeachment, according to the analysis of the Law Library of Congress. It used to mention impeachment, but gave no process. However, it also granted politicians immunity. A Decree in 2003 repealed both provisions; no politician has general immunity, but there is no special impeachment process. Violations of Honduran law by the President are dealt with through the normal court system alone.

The Law Library of Congress concludes that the removal appears to follow Honduran law, but that exiling him from the country appears to be illegal. He should have been held for the trial that the Supreme Court ordered.

[Mango Punch]

@ Geotpf

Here is a good WSJ article from June on the topic.

If you don't subscribe, e-mail me and I'll send you the text.

-JGB

[R C Dean]

This has really turned out to be way to much trouble for Honduras. Why did they not just shoot him

Yep. If you strike at the (would-be) king . . . .

Thanks for playing, Geotpf. You provided a sterling example of getting pwned on a comment board.

[John Thacker]

"In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there was a crime"

Yes, "in the moment that [they] took him out of the country" it was a crime. Exiling him was illegal.

My argument is that he should have been charged in court instead of being removed by force. The fact that he was removed by force makes it a coup, period.

He should have been charged in court. But he should have been arrested. The two things are separate. The fact that he was removed by force was in accordance with law. The fact that he was sent out of the country was not.

[Mango Punch]

From the above mentioned WSJ article:

"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. Ch?vez 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

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.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica."

I'm no expert on Honduran law, but that seems pretty explicit and reasonable.

[John Thacker]

Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho has begun an investigation into why Zelaya was removed from Honduras by force instead of being charged in court.

Yes. He should not have been removed from the country itself. He should have been removed from office and charged in court.

[R C Dean]

My argument is that he should have been charged in court instead of being removed by force. The fact that he was removed by force makes it a coup, period.

Not really. He was immediately ineligible to hold office upon trying to push through the referendum. He refused to vacate the office, meaning that the only way to implement the Constitution was to remove him by force.

The exile was probably extralegal; no doubt the Hondurans thought that he would cause less domestic trouble if he was exiled rather than held pending trial.

Really, its a shame he wasn't shot attempting to escape from custody.

[Nipplemancer]

hypothetical for Geoptf - if zelaya were to refuse to step down after his legal term ended, would you consider his forcible removal as a coup? or would you wait for the OAS, UN, and other organizations to tell you what took place?

[John Thacker]

Geotpf, did you even read what you bolded? It completely agrees with the CRS report by the Law Library of Congress. Removal from office and arrest was legitimate-- your point about impeachment doesn't carry weight because there is no separate impeachment process. He did, however, become ineligible to be President.

Being sent out of the country was a mistake and illegal. He should have been made to stand trial. I believe that they felt, mistakenly, like exile would lead to more peace and be an easy way out. It was not.

[Geotpf]

One could also make the argument that the Honduran constitution is fundamentally flawed in the fact impeachment is allowed but no process is described to carry it out. The current situation is the result of this flaw.

Any removal of a major elected official is going to be controversial to the point of starting a civil war if not done in an orderly manner according to previously agreed upon procedures. That will probably be the net result here.

[Random Dude]

Geotpf said:

"One could also make the argument that the Honduran constitution is fundamentally flawed in the fact impeachment is allowed but no process is described to carry it out. The current situation is the result of this flaw."

You don't get off so easy :-). Until you affirm that this wasn't a "coup," I think you're just doing some mental justification for the premature reactions of the left. That their Constitution might have some problems isn't the issue here.

What is at issue is the government of a whole country and its military unanimously ejected a man who had (1) falsified election ballots, (2) improperly ordered the military to enforce an unconstitutional vote, and (3) violated a direct constitutional law that prohibits a second term.

That they screwed up in ejecting him from the country afterwards (while he was an ordinary Honduran citizen) is beside the point--everything else was constitutionally adherent as indicated by the CRS.

We have two concepts at play here: rule of law vs. dictatorship by persona. That some have said he was "democratically elected" is irrelevant. If George W. Bush tried something similar to this in this country, I assure you, the people defending Zelaya currently would have a problem.

This was not a "coup" and the Obama administration royally messed this one up. The cognitive dissonance you hear from the left is the realization that their "experienced" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Grand Savior Obama would rather defend militant leftist authoritarians than rule of law.

[Episiarch]

Thanks for playing, Geotpf. You provided a sterling example of getting pwned on a comment board.

Really, Geotpf, you should stop while you're way the fuck behind.

[James Ard]

What's the point of a trial when the supreme court is 15 to 0 for getting the guy out of there? If civil war hasn't broken out yet, I doubt it will. Micheletti is from Zelays's party, and despite Chavez's best efforts, I haven't seen much unrest. And the press would definately show it if it was happening.

[J sub D]

Grrr!

IT WAS NOT A COUP!

The way this administration handled the constitutional crisis in Honduras angers me no friggin' end.
I expected the health care reform nonsense. I expected a climate change power grab. I didn't expect the administration to back a wannabe presidente de por vida who committed treason as defined by his own country's constitution.

Read this and Fausta's follow up post and be very ashamed of our foreign policy diplomacy.

[J sub D]

The Obama administration too has turned the screws on the de facto jure government in Tegucigalpa, which forced Zelaya out of the country after his administration ignored a supreme court decision halting a plebiscite on extending term limits:

FIFY Michael. Grrr!

[J sub D]

Oopies. My previous* should look like
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Obama administration too has turned the screws on the de facto jure government in Tegucigalpa, which forced Zelaya out of the country after his administration ignored a supreme court decision halting a plebiscite on extending term limits:

FIFY Michael. Grrr!
----------------------------------------------------------------

* I wish we had a preview funcion around here,

[James Ard]

definitely.

[Hazel Meade]

I think what they ought to do (and likely will have to do) is reinstate him, wait until he attempts to push forward his unconstitutional referendum again, and then remove him legally.

Yes, it seems like a damn waste of time. However, it's probably the mechanism most likely to resolve the crisis peacefully.

The danger in delaying this action is that it'll improve the chances he'll be able to force through his referendum anyway.

[Tony]

No country currently recognizes Micheletti as the legitimate head of state of Honduras, and 192 UN nations and all members of the OAS support reinstating Zelaya--who is, of course, no real friend of the U.S. Zelaya, after having a resignation letter forged, was exiled after being kidnapped by the Honduran military, which was an illegal action. The action has been universally recognized as an undemocratic act. Obama doesn't really have much to gain by Zelaya's reinstatement, so I think we can rule out every motive beyond agreeing with the rest of the world that this fits the definition of a coup and the legitimate leader should be reinstated.

[R C Dean]

I think what they ought to do (and likely will have to do) is reinstate him, wait until he attempts to push forward his unconstitutional referendum again, and then remove him legally.

He was removed from office legally.

He wasn't removed from the country legally.

Charge him, release him on bond, make it clear he can never hold the office of Presidency again, and let him fade into irrelevance.

The opinions of the OAS and the UN are meaningless on the issue of legitimacy and constitutionality.

[Random Dude]

@James Ard:
"despite Chavez's best efforts, I haven't seen much unrest. And the press would definately show it if it was happening."

Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

(Unless of course you are actually in Honduras, in which case you obviously are more aware of this...)

[James Ard]

I should have checked my paper before posting. The WSJ is one of very few sources with decent info on what's going on down there.

[J sub D]

Fuck Tony and every leftist dicttor loving fuckwad who supports what Hillary and Obama are doing to strangle Honduran democracy in it's crib.

Fuck you all very much.

[JB]

'But, but the the WaPo and NYT call it a coup so it must be a coup!!!1!1'

'It's what plants crave!'

[Joe M]

JB, you're killin me.

[Libertymike]

Tulpa, great job.

Sheesh, I agree with Moynihan.

Geoptf and Tony: Admit it-the two of you have never met a socialist who is hell bent on disregarding a nation's constitution in his quest for more and more power that yous haven't liked.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Israeli mercenaries" are torturing him with radiation?

Yeah, and the King of Norway uses my penis as a radio transmitter to broadcast anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipies to Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch.

(swiped from George Carlin... kudos, wherever you are.)

[Suki]

That settles it. I am ordering a Mossad t-shirt from israeli-T.com tonight.

[Paul]

An Honduran congressman said their only mistake with Zelaya was dumping him out of the plane in his pajamas instead of arresting him.

Hear-hear!

[Paul]

"Israeli mercenaries" are torturing him with radiation?

"High frequency" radiation.

[MNG]

"the Wall Street Journal reports that "roving bands of his supporters [have] set up roadblocks around the capital, smashed windows, and engaged in sporadic battles with police and army troops"

I thought I heard on the radio that the other side was engaged in some anti-liberty shenanigans too, such as a curfew.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Oh, yeah, right... "high frequency" radiation. Targeted specifically at him. From Israel. Right. Got it.

My God, what is it with insane left-wing despots?

[J sub D]

MNG,

This may come as a shock to you, but in America one of the first things the government does when bands of people start rioting is impose a curfew.

But you knew that, right?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Anti-liberty shenanigans?

That's like saying a serial killer is just involved in ongoing murder-based mischief.

[aix42]

glad to read most understand that this was not a coup, despite the rest of the worlds guvmints saying it is.

I agree with having him arrested and released on bond, but the problem is the whole mob of supporters thing. All them South/Central American countries seem quite capable of riots when some worshiped thug needs 'em. Don't need a radiated Super Zelya leading a mob rule.

[Low frequency radiation would be loud music I guess? lol....]

[Mad Max]

'Yes. He should not have been removed from the country itself. He should have been removed from office and charged in court.'

Well, it seems he's back in Honduras now, holed up in the Brazilian embassy. The Honduran government seems to genuinely regret the attempted exile, and claims it would be happy to have the Z-man stay in the country, in accomodations provided by the government itself.

From the CRS report cited by John Thacker, it seems the Honduran Congress has the power to interpret the country's constitution, and by voting that the Z-man had violated the constitution and should be removed, Congress was exercising that power.

The Supreme Court, apparently, relinquished jurisdiction over the Z-man once Congress made him a private citizen, turning the trial on the criminal charges over to the local criminal court, as with other private citizens. (The previous basis for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was that it can hear cases against high officials like the President).

So the Honduran Constitution authorizes Congress to make Constitutional interpretations (and also to deal with executive misbehavior), and Congress has used its interpretations to remove the Z-man from office.

But never mind the actual Constitution of Honduras, or the body authorized to interpret that Constitution - we know it's a coup because a bunch of diplomats call it a coup. And who appoints and instructs the diplomats in every country? The executive branch in that country.

Gosh, maybe the diplomats are not being fully impartial when, responside to instructions to the executive branch in government throughout the world, they decide to protect an errant executive-branch head from removal?

[Mad Max]

instructions *from* the executive branch

[MNG]

"But never mind the actual Constitution of Honduras, or the body authorized to interpret that Constitution"

Max, wtf do you know about the Constitution of Honduras? You're just parroting some blog you've read.

I find it highly unlikely that the Honduran constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to order the military to simply physically kick out a President who is trying to carry out a poll/referendum which the Supreme court declares illegal. What part of the Honduran Constitution calls for that expert?

[aix42]

that's been covered already, no mechanism for removal but required when an attempt is made to change term limits.

Attempts referendum, strike one
ignores Supreme court ruling, strike two
agitates for supporters to defy army, court
!yer out!

Should not have deported him, I do sympathize with earlier views of having him deplaned without landing though, old school...

[jtuf]

MNG, do you also want Obama to intervene in Paterson, NJ?

Via the NJ Libertarian Party website.

NJ city considers adult curfew after crime spate
8/18/2009, 4:38 p.m. EDT The Associated Press

(AP) - PATERSON, N.J. - Curfews might not be just for kids anymore in one city in northern New Jersey.

Officials in Paterson are considering one for people of all ages in a bid to curb violence after a spate of deadly shootings.

Several experts say they believe it would be the nation's first curfew of its type to include adults. The state ACLU says it would open Paterson to legal action.

The curfew would last for two months and would bar people from loitering outside from midnight to 7 a.m. Violators would face up to a $2,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

[SusanM]

Would it have been better if he had been shot and dumped in the forest? Maybe so but what is going on here is a (by their standards) legitimate exercise of authority and it is not for "the community of nations" to decide that this (mostly) peaceful transfer of power is right or wrong.

Or maybe everyone would have preferred a long and destabilizing civil war over this?

[anonymous]

"If there was some sort of court proceeding prior to the impeachment, that would be one thing. Nobody stuck a gun in Bill Clinton's face and dragged him out of the White House."

No one was concerned about Democrats rioting and becoming violent in his defense. The military forced Zelaya to leave so quickly and unexpectedly mainly to limit the civil unrest. Now that he's back, things will go downhill rapidly.

Zelaya's a particularly bizarre person for presumably honestly left-wing politicians to pin their hopes on, considering his right-wing business background. His about-face on policy doesn't suggest conversion, it suggests that he places personal power above ideology and is using unions and the downtrodden the same way he used the right-wing establishment before. He's a Fontaine, if you ask me.

[MNG]

Max
http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-summing-up-some-basic-points.html

jtuf-goes a bit further than NJ style curfews, eh? Let me cite a recent release by Human Rights Watch, an organization which Moynihan has linked to in order to demonstrate Chavez's crappy human rights record
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/25/honduras-rights-report-shows-need-increased-international-pressure

Reports of censorship of media outlets, detention of dissenters, suspension of rights...when its Chavez Moynihan goes apeshit, but he leaves any mention of this sort of thing by the coup government out of his post...

[jtuf]

I just checked the Buenos Aires Herald. It had two new articles.

Zelaya says he has already began to talk with Honduran political sectors

and

Honduras lifts curfew

A delegation from the Organization of American States is on the case. So is Jimmy Carter.

[Joe M]

Max, wtf do you know about the Constitution of Honduras? You're just parroting some blog you've read.

Jackass, he's referring to the Law Library of Congress Report on this precise issue. That's not just "some blog."

[D.R.M.]

Constitution of Honduras:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempe?ado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podr? ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la Rep?blica.

El que quebrante esta disposici?n o proponga su reforma, as? como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesar?n de inmediato en el desempe?o de sus respectivos cargos y quedar?n inhabilitados por diez (10) a?os para el ejercicio de toda funci?n p?blica.

In English:

ARTICLE 239 - No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

------------

Did Zelaya propose a reform of the Honduran Constitution, without exempting any articles?

Yes.

Does proposing reform of Article 239 immediately, without any outside action, end the term of office of anyone who so proposes?

Yes.

Is Zelaya the constitutional President of Honduras?

No; he ceased to be President the moment he proposed constitutional reform without exempting Article 239.

Was Zelaya victim of a coup d'?tat?

A coup is an unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government. Since Zelaya was no longer the legitimate President, it is impossible for his exile from the country to have been a coup d'?tat, no matter how illegal and improper the expulsion may have been in other respects.

Can Zelaya be restored to power?

Not without blatantly violating Article 239 of the Constitution of Honduras, which utterly forbids him from holding any office in the next ten years or ever again holding the office of President.

[jester]

Oh, Mama! I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of Mossad.

[jester]

I heard there was a nativist coup on Isla Clipperton. Where is that in the news?!!

[jester]

This is Honduras folks. Let them do things their way. In the aftermath, either cancel your Roatan Diving Adventure or continue your Mayan culture study featuring Copan. It's your call. The US should stay out of this on all terms. The Idaho Statesman should be our liaison. FGS.

[jester]

"So is Jimmy Carter"

So the racist fuck is in Honduras drumming up more self-praise. Good God, what a monumental dick.Even Yucca Mountain isn't toxic enough for his eventual burial. Ew! What a creepy human being.

[jester]

I have been going to Honduras for years (since 1991). Honestly, it has its own issues. We should stay clear of the place other than having a mano a mano free trade policy. And get our troops safely home!

[Sean Healy]

All I can say is I'm delighted that, as a result of the political instability, the USA and Honduras will now likely play their World Cup qualifier at a neutral venue instead of the hellhole that is San Pedro Sula.

[huangzhixian35]

http://WWW.ICFSHOP.COM =====FREE SHIPPING FREE======

BIKINI $25. OUR COMMITMENT,CUSTOMER IS GOD.

http://www.icfshop.com

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price: (Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16

http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE=====

I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!

[Seamus]

I find it highly unlikely that the Honduran constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to order the military to simply physically kick out a President who is trying to carry out a poll/referendum which the Supreme court declares illegal. What part of the Honduran Constitution calls for that expert?

I believe that several people have already cited article 329. If you're looking for where the constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to enforce that article the way it did, you might check out article 304: "Corresponds to the courts apply the laws to specific cases, try and run the court. In no time may be established courts of emergency." (The translation is a bit creaky, but the meaning isn't hard to figure out. The authority of the Honduran Supreme Court to act as it did is at least as clear as the authority of the federal judiciary to exercise judicial review to invalidate acts of Congress, or to order the Florida authorities to stop recounting the ballots.)

[Hans Bader]

Honduras's removal of its ex-president from office was legal under Articles 239 and 272 of its Constitution, which do not require trial or impeachment for certain offenses, and give the military certain enforcement responsibilities.

Honduras's ex-president was arrested on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court.

Many legal commentators and foreign policy analysts have said that the ex-president's removal was legal, including Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, Dan Miller, Kim Holmes, and William Ratliff.

While his removal from office was clearly valid, his subsequent exile from his country may have violated Article 81 of the Honduras Constitution.

His removal was not a "coup" because a coup is the "unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government by a small group," and he was validly removed by Honduras's legitimate government -- its Supreme Court with the assent of its Congress -- was himself no longer the legitimate government, and was removed not with the support of a small group, but rather with the support of a unanimous supreme court (consistently mostly of justices of his own party), an almost-unanimous Congress, and much of society (including the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Catholic Archbishop, most of the middle class, most of the rural poor, and virtually all business owners).

[Tony]

When not a single country on the planet supports a government as legitimate, arguing that it is in fact legitimate is pretty academic.

[metakid]

The next legit step would then for elections to be held. I wonder if the US will recognize the elections though since it's backing Zeleya. Sounds like Zeleya himself might not recognize it. http://www.newsy.com/videos/manuel_zelaya_returns_part_three. At least that's what's Micheletti is suggesting.

[Wm. Rhett Baker]

America needs to stop interfering in Latin America and close all bases on foreign soil. China must be destroyed.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Tony,

The Honduran constitution says "thou shalt only be president once". This prick tried to end-run it, setting himself up as dictator. He got what he deserved, just as any American president should if one decided to go rogue and set themselves up for more than their allotted term(s).

Seems pretty cut-and-dried. What's your problem?

Zelaya was ATTEMPTING A COUP. There, fixed it for ya.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Besides, Tony, this would-be dictator actually *chuckle* thinks the Israelis are aiming *snicker* radiation guns at him.

If that isn't proof the Honduran gov't did the right thing in getting rid of him, I don't know what is.

[jester]

It's Honduras, folks. Let them sort things out themselves. Venezuela sorted things out. Brazil sorted things out. Peru sorted things out. Ecuador sorted things out. Argentina sorted things out. Nicaragua sorted things out.

If I gave a fuck (and I do but not enough to become a mercenary; but see below), I'd become a mercenary. Otherwise, I encourage free trade with any and all fucked-up oligarchies. It's our gain and their loss.

[jester]

Honduras has a constitution? Isn't democracy more important?

That's what you're saying. Tony et al. You're correct. Put in a pile of shit to rule overbearingly.

Proof that libertarians hate brown people. But that would destroy your dialogue.

Not in your eyes.

[jester]

Personally, I am all for dictatorship, if it is of the benign Castro form. Results: 100% literacy; recognition of homosexuality; free artistic expression; abundance of everything.