Honduras: Who's correct?

[tagos]

@Frodo

Jeez, is that so hard to understand?, if Zelaya wants to follow Chavez, Hitler or Ghandi is a point that must concern him, the Honduran electorate and the Honduran Congress, NOT the military, and certainly NOT the WSJ. :mad:

The right never met a military dictator or coup they didn’t like. You’re wasting your breath.

[GIGObuster]

BTW it seems that the referendum was going to be a failure any how.

As another doper mentioned: “democracy is not for sissies”

There is monumental cowardice in not waiting for elections to get rid of bad politicians. Specially when they know that they control the army, congress and the courts.

And I have to say that arresting and making the opposition disappear (this is Honduras, and I was not born yesterday) means that human rights will go to the toilet unless all nations oppose what the new “government” does.

[BrainGlutton]

Not matter what the cause or reason, it is never a good thing when a country’s military establishment acts as an independent political force in its own right. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm throughout Latin America and has been since independence.

[GIGObuster]

As news are hard to get, looking at the alternatives, here is a report that tells me that even the “unanimous” support of the Honduras congress for the coup to be a lie.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/correction-honduran-presidential-candidate-still-alive

With respect to the situation of the leaders of the Democratic Unification Party, an organization that was born out of the fusion of historically left forces in Honduras, Deputy Thomas Andino Mencias, stated that the his party’s parliamentarians did not participate in the congressional session because they are being detained by the military for not approving the usurpation of the legislative branch.

[JRDelirious]

@Frodo

YES!, the military must obey the orders of their commander in chief (AKA the president) and the constitution, they have not the right to decide when the president must be deposed, the FUCKING congress must impeach him if it wants, NOT the military.

Jeez, is that so hard to understand?, if Zelaya wants to follow Chavez, Hitler or Ghandi is a point that must concern him, the Honduran electorate and the Honduran Congress, NOT the military, and certainly NOT the WSJ. :mad:

And what the opposition and intra-party dissidents had to do was get their act together and mobilize assertively to put up a strong, loud, unified No-To-Zelaya front so as to defeat or discredit his poll, and then defeat or badly weaken him at the general election.

But it looks like the opposition was not really unified under any coherent leadership and strategy; and besides that the Congressional opponents did not think they could put together the votes to impeach ('cause if they had the votes, they probably would have impeached); so instead they turned to the old school alternative.

Now Zelaya will be a “victim” and if not him, some proxy from his faction will rally not just his supporters but also forces from other parties who reject putschism, and create an eventual victory for his policies. Great job, guys.

[GIGObuster]

Usually, on times like this, the corporate media is unreliable.

With some caveats I do recommend Al Giordano’s Narconews* for more accurate reports and incisive opinion

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/américa-held-hostage-day-two-coup-honduras

During the 2002 coup in Venezuela by an alliance of military generals, corporate media, that country’s disgraced political class and the Bush administration in Washington, our colleague (and victorious codefendant) Mario Menéndez Rodríguez spoke some words to me that I’ve never forgotten:

“You will know the true character of a person by his actions during an hour of moral crisis.”

As the coup-plotters in Honduras (similarly of a military-media-political class alliance, but this time without the support of Washington) enter their second day of temporary power with the rejection of the entire hemisphere and planet upon them, and the inconformity of the Honduran people (who defied martial law last night to erect barricades in the streets and otherwise resist the coup), we can observe “the true character” of various media and political voices across the political spectrum.

Let’s start with the “newspaper of record,” the New York Times, which in 2002 at first editorialized in praise of the Venezuelan coup, only to be forced to publish an unprecedented correction and apology (in large part urged by an email campaign sparked by readers of Narco News) for its initial anti-democratic position.

This time, the Timesmen are more circumspect, acknowledging that there was indeed a coup d’etat in Honduras, but they’re having a very hard time wrapping their Columbia School of Journalism-addled brains around the reality that Washington is on the same page as Caracas and the rest of the hemisphere’s democracies in opposing the coup. In what is billed as a “news analysis,” titled “Rare Hemisphere Unity in Assailing Honduran Coup,” Simon Romero, who holds the Gray Lady’s Juan Forero seat in defense of oligarchies, Romero tries to come to grips with the new geopolitical realities of our América. He almost pulls it off, but then the fangs come out:

And while governments in the region may reject military ousters much more easily than, say, the civilian demonstrations that forced democratically elected leaders to resign earlier this decade in Argentina and Bolivia, the Obama administration has also shifted the way in which Washington reacts to such events.

In other words, Romero equates mostly peaceful acts of civil resistance by societies with those of violent military coups d’etat if social movements cause the resignation of a president. The means mean nothing, to Romero, compared to the ends. (There were, in the United States in 1974, a certain similar group of crazies that thought President Nixon’s resignation was akin to a coup, too.) In those words is Romero’s “tell,” in poker terms, of how exasperating he finds this situation. It’s unfamiliar to him, and to so many, that Washington would, for the first time, side against an oligarchic coup in Latin America. The only handle of hope Romero can grasp onto now is to try and lump nonviolent civil resistance (what the US Constitution calls “redress of grievances”) of the kind that has changed our América for the better in recent years in with the violent actions of military gorillas at the bidding of the upper classes.

That the New York Times struggles bombastically to adjust to new realities shouldn’t surprise anyone. Big, lumbering and bureaucratic institutions, including those in the corporate media, don’t adapt well to change and consider it instinctually as threatening.

But there has also been a very similar dynamic in response to the new reality from some corners of the left (this is very similar to - in some cases overlapping with - responses we recently covered to the crisis in Iran, too).

Over just 24 hours, we have seen certain colleagues first claim that if there is a coup in Latin America, Washington must be behind it. Then when Washington - in contrast to the Bush administration’s cheerleading reaction to the 2002 coup in Venezuela - rejected the coup plotters’ scam that the removed president had “resigned,” that line of critique began moving the goal posts. Okay, some said, Washington says it opposes the coup but it hasn’t denounced it strongly enough!

They sound like John McCain scolding the Obama administration for not denouncing the regime in Iran with sufficient testosterone.

Of course, what some will claim - again errantly - is that I’m merely being some kind of apologist for the Obama administration here. But no apology is needed nor given. I’ll simply remind that when Obama policy toward Latin America is wrongheaded, as with its support for Plan Mexico and its Calderon regime - no news source has been more frequently critical of those Obama policies than Narco News. One need only browse the 436 instances in which we have criticized that harmful US policy regarding Mexico, to see that when Washington is wrong or harmful, we spare no punches and take a back seat to none of its critics. Not one of the poor souls that has made that claim, by the way, has done any heavy lifting at all in opposition to Plan Mexico; they’re all talk, no action.

No, what I’m saying is that if we are to effectively dismantle the Honduras coup, we need to use an accurate road map of how that coup came to be and who is really behind it, just as we did when participating in the undoing of the 2002 Venezuela coup.

Inventing convenient untruths while doing that only muddies the waters. It also loses the credibility any publication or writer needs to have any impact at all. The public is not stupid. Most can see when one is trying to “fool the crowd” in a moment of crisis. It bears repeating the words of our colleague Mario, quoted atop these words: “You will know the true character of a person by his actions during an hour of moral crisis.”

In this hour, those that adhere strictly to the documented facts are those that are showing character worth trusting, today and into the future. Others are squandering that credibility just as badly as NY Timesman Simon Romero fritters away his own. We leave it to the public to sort out the conflicting claims, and to the authentic coup opponents to draw the accurate roadmap that successfully defeats this anti-democratic and violent coup d’etat.

• (News on the dumb war of drugs (and do not ignore that there are elements of this in the current coup))

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

• (News on the dumb war of drugs (and do not ignore that there are elements of this in the current coup))

Then which side are the narcotrafficantes – Zelaya, or the oligarchy-and-military?

[Olentzero]

I’m trying to find out the origins of the one-term limit on presidential administrations - no luck so far, but finding this article brings a couple of interesting points up:

Article 2, which states that sovereignty originates in the people, also includes a provision new to the 1982 constitution that labels the supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power as “crimes of treason against the fatherland.” This provision can be considered an added constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian governments.

The ploy of claiming Zelaya resigned has already fallen through; how’s the army going to spin this one?

…[S]everal constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.

It does sound like Zelaya was playing with fire on this particular issue, but that hardly justifies a military coup. Again, the poll that was supposed to occur today was a non-binding one to determine if a referendum would be held alongside the November elections; even if Zelaya won the poll and the referendum, amending the term-limit provision would still have to be approved by the Constitutional Assembly. Given the opposition he faced before the coup, I don’t believe even that would have been a sure thing.

[garygnu]

As I understand it, the Honduran Constitution explicitly forbids the president from even advocating a change in the presidential term limit. Does anyone have insight on this?

I don’t exactly have a dog in the fight, but I’m leaning against Zelaya.

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

Then which side are the narcotrafficantes – Zelaya, or the oligarchy-and-military?

IMHO the narcos got to corrupt all, but it is clear that there are several rich people that are involved in the drug trafficking. It is like in El Salvador where the media there blames the “maras” for the trafficking, the problem is, as some reporters noticed, that it is ridiculous to think that rabble like that are the ones moving millions if not billions of dollars in drugs. Central America is the bridge for the drugs that come from South America to the USA.

Just a few months ago In El Salvador the left won the presidency. As less corrupt leaders in El Salvador are taking over (yes, I’m not naive, drugs can eventually corrupt anything) many high end level drug contacts are biting the dust, There were a couple of members of the right wing party that “killed” themselves when it became clear that the corruption was going to come out.

As more eyes are now looking for high end corruption in El Salvador the drug cartels can look forward now to have a heaven in Honduras. There will be little or no oversight so the corruption will go way up.

[GIGObuster]

@garygnu

As I understand it, the Honduran Constitution explicitly forbids the president from even advocating a change in the presidential term limit. Does anyone have insight on this?

I don’t exactly have a dog in the fight, but I’m leaning against Zelaya.

As mentioned, going against the coup plotters does not mean that Zelaya will be reinstated. The coup was still a crime.

[Martin_Hyde]

It’s interesting how things play out. When George Bush was President many actions taken throughout his Presidency were seen as attempts by Bush to make himself a “dictator” through legislation or executive order.

When leftist Presidents in Latin America actually do this, and are clearly trying to make themselves dictators, the left cheers them on.

A Constitution is only so valuable, as Thomas Jefferson said:

We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will… The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded.

He also said:

If the appeal to arms is made, it will depend entirely on the disposition of the army whether it issue in liberty or despotism.

Sometimes outright, illegal revolution is the only answer acceptable. No matter how “legal” any form of government which systematically works to enshrine a despite is one that has no moral ground on which to stand.

[Frodo]

@Martin_Hyde

It’s interesting how things play out. When George Bush was President many actions taken throughout his Presidency were seen as attempts by Bush to make himself a “dictator” through legislation or executive order.

When leftist Presidents in Latin America actually do this, and are clearly trying to make themselves dictators, the left cheers them on.

A Constitution is only so valuable, as Thomas Jefferson said:

He also said:
Sometimes outright, illegal revolution is the only answer acceptable. No matter how “legal” any form of government which systematically works to enshrine a despite is one that has no moral ground on which to stand.

Did Anybody on “teh left” call for the military to depose Bush?, I think they called for his impeachment, perhaps if the honduran Congress had impeached him and “teh left” protested you’ll have a point.

[glowacks]

Coups are always “justified” by their perpetrators in some way; the vast majority of the time they say that the previous government was corrupt and needed to be replaced. This time, they got a little more sophisticated. They are trying very hard to maintain a facade that the removal of the president was not a coup despite it looking very much like one by claiming that there was legal authority behind their actions.

It’s really hard to be against a coup when they are clearly taking out someone who is attempting as hard as he can to be legally elected president-for-life or similar. But the military removing the president (and not making him stand trial) when there is not direct constitutional justification is going to be widely condemned by countries in favor of all changes occurring through the rules of law.

[athelas]

The way I see it is that, in a lot of countries, the military serves as a fourth branch of government and acts as a check against an overreaching executive branch. This is especially true in countries where the military officers tend to be composed of the nation’s best and brightest while the voters are poor and uneducated. Zelaya, the ousted president, was attempting to violate the Honduran constitution by staying in office longer than he was allowed to. The Honduran supreme court has ruled that the military acted in accordance with the Honduran constitution, and in fact it was the supreme court which authorized the coup in the first place.

Just because the United States doesn’t have an independent military doesn’t mean it’s a bad system for other countries, unfortunate as it may be. So I give Obama a big thumbs down for trying to put Zelaya back in power. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Obama is a fool who is working against the interests of both the United States and the people of Honduras.

[elucidator]

No doubt, he will be crushed to hear that he has lost your whole-hearted support and admiration.

[spazattak]

@aldiboronti

The military acted as guarantors of constitutional rule. Were they supposed to just stand by while Zelaya followed his buddy Chavez down the path towards President for Lifetime?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Long may he stay there.

Seriously… Quoting an op-ed for facts? Especially when authored by a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board?

top stories in Opinion

Mary Anastasia O’Grady is a member of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and editor of the “Americas,” a weekly column that appears every Monday in the Journal and deals with politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada.

Originally posted by GOB
C’mon!

[spazattak]

@garygnu

As I understand it, the Honduran Constitution explicitly forbids the president from even advocating a change in the presidential term limit. Does anyone have insight on this?

I don’t exactly have a dog in the fight, but I’m leaning against Zelaya.

I think it’s permissible to lean against both. This isn’t an either/or proposition. It’s Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, but Turd Sandwich jumped the gun and didn’t allow the process to play out like he should have.

[BrainGlutton]

@athelas

Just because the United States doesn’t have an independent military doesn’t mean it’s a bad system for other countries . . .

:dubious: How many instances can you name in modern history where the military, acting as an independent domestic political force, has been a beneficial force?

[GIGObuster]

@athelas

The way I see it is that, in a lot of countries, the military serves as a fourth branch of government and acts as a check against an overreaching executive branch.

That is the way dictators see it.

This is especially true in countries where the military officers tend to be composed of the nation’s best and brightest while the voters are poor and uneducated. Zelaya, the ousted president, was attempting to violate the Honduran constitution by staying in office longer than he was allowed to.

And? That is not a reason to make a coup against him, you impeach him or put him on trial.

The Honduran supreme court has ruled that the military acted in accordance with the Honduran constitution, and in fact it was the supreme court which authorized the coup in the first place.

Lets see if you can come out of that propaganda shell.

Can you explain how it was that because the president was doing something illegal (granted) he was removed from office and expelled from the country instead of being tried for his crimes? Unless you can show me that was the order of the court you are only finding excuses for a bigger crime.

A crime that includes closing opposition newspapers and radio, jailing and scaring opposition members, and just by remembering the history of the place: setting the stage to let death squads run unopposed.

Just because the United States doesn’t have an independent military doesn’t mean it’s a bad system for other countries, unfortunate as it may be. So I give Obama a big thumbs down for trying to put Zelaya back in power. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Obama is a fool who is working against the interests of both the United States and the people of Honduras.

And ideas like that then gives others a good reason to propose laws to expel un-americans that do not understand history or civics.

But I will not be the one proposing that, many right wingers would love it though.