# \*sigh\* No, Manuel Zelaya is not an "anti-American socialist" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681 "2009-10-05T15:51:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/21 "2009-10-07T20:02:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But it **does** seem unreasonable to **assume** it. Actually, given the trajectory he was following, it is not an unreasonable hypothesis at all. I am not sure I would subscribe to it, but if someone more invested in the subject wished to argue the hypothesis there seems substantive grounds to. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Before the coup that was a reasonable point, after the coup that is not reasonable. A bigger ongoing crime is happening, no one that appreciates democracy should remain just on a neutral position. More pressure is needed if only to save lives in Honduras and to restore basic freedoms. Evidently I disagree about the reasonableness of the point. As for appreciation of democracy, well, I think a non-partisan - neither hard Left like yourself and Brainglutton nor lunatic American Right - would be well served by a Pox on All Houses position, but fully support a resolution that was democratic. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I know it was, and the provision of the Honduran constitution on which that conclusion was premised, which is itself a very interesting discussion. But how is that relevant? Your rendition is charmingly devoid of allowance for the “colourful” ousted President’s hammering on an initiative of dubious legality (per domestic courts of the highest instance), never mind long-term democratic practice. Of course the characterisation of the “poll” - binding, not binding, etc seems rather fundamentally at dispute. However, none of this makes him a Socialist, nor Marxist. A populist demagogue, yes. > [@](#): > > Then please explain the mechanism, constitutional **or** unconstitutional, by which Zelaya could have hung on for a second term, with his country’s military and the social elite dead set against that, and his personal approval rating with the general public none too high, as **Sam Stone** as pointed out. Zelaya probably has more of a power base **now** than before he was deposed. That is a profoundly stupid question. The unconstitutional means are pretty clear, Chavez style rolling coup could be imagined (one builds support over time, leveraging the poll), pull over some disaffected officers, etc. Opining Zelaya has more of a power base now than before… eh. Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any case, the Coup government shed any potential argument of legitimacy it might have advanced in the first month already, so one is back to a pox on all houses as not particularly genuinely democratic, and a pox on the bizarrities of the American Right that childishly keeps searching for 1980s era political themes… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/22 "2009-10-07T20:42:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Manuel Zelaya is not a “socialist.” He’s a **businessman.** Nor is he “anti-American.” N.B.: The characterizations “socialist” and “anti-American” do not automatically apply to any leader who , for whatever political or strategic reasons, makes an alliance with Chavez or Castro. Why the love for a wanna-be dictator that his own party dis-owned? He’s trying to re-write the constitution and he has a hard-on for people like Chavez. Why do you care what label he gets? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/23 "2009-10-07T21:25:08Z")
Because we can’t support the coup-plotters either. If Zelaya is deemed unacceptable because he’s a communist no-goodnik, then we endorse the current dictatorship. It doesn’t matter whether Zelaya is anti-American or buddies with Chavez or not, he’s the elected president of Honduras. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/24 "2009-10-07T21:32:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Because we can’t support the coup-plotters either. If Zelaya is deemed unacceptable because he’s a communist no-goodnik, then we endorse the current dictatorship. > > It doesn’t matter whether Zelaya is anti-American or buddies with Chavez or not, he’s the elected president of Honduras. He WAS the elected president of Honduras. He got voted off the island by his own legislators and the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/25 "2009-10-07T23:29:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He WAS the elected president of Honduras. He got voted off the island by his own legislators and the Supreme Court. Without buying into the hard Left sanitisation of the ousted President’s recent actions, it is worth being as well critical of the manner in which the Honduran government (over-)reacted. I wouldn’t say all is legit with his ouster AND expulsion, for all that it was not (ouster) in no small part provoked. Just because he probably was evolving to a bad copy of Chavez does not make what happened subsequently all right and proper. Two wrongs don’t make a democracy right, in short. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/26 "2009-10-07T23:55:28Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Without buying into the hard Left sanitisation of the ousted President’s recent actions, it is worth being as well critical of the manner in which the Honduran government (over-)reacted. I wouldn’t say all is legit with his ouster AND expulsion, for all that it was not (ouster) in no small part provoked. Just because he probably was evolving to a bad copy of Chavez does not make what happened subsequently all right and proper. > > Two wrongs don’t make a democracy right, in short. I understand what you’re trying to say but it wasn’t a random military coup. It was directed by the Supreme Court and sanctioned by Congress. Admittedly the congressional sanction was after the fact it still had some basis in political legitimacy similar to impeachment. Admittedly the restriction of freedoms that followed didn’t paint a very good picture. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/27 "2009-10-08T02:56:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Why the love for a wanna-be dictator that his own party dis-owned? > He’s trying to re-write the constitution and he has a hard-on for people like Chavez. Why do you care what label he gets? 1. I like to see the record kept straight. 2. I don’t like seeing “anti-American socialist” used as a content-free all-purpose beating-stick. Shoulldn’t that kind of bullshit have died with the Cold War?! 3. Zelaya is not a “wanna-be dictator,” either, or at least there’s no real reason to think so. At worst, he’s a not-terribly-competent politician in a not-terribly-competent country/region, with slightly better intentions than those who have supplanted him. 4. Like the Honduran people, I don’t have much love for Zelaya but **hate** the thugs who ousted him. Over the past 20 years Latin America has at long last been emerging from centuries of dictatorships and military juntas and establishing democratic governments. (Sometimes those are **leftist** governments, and you might not like that, but if you value democracy you have to accept the voters’ choices as legitimate even when unwise.) This sort of thing is a major setback if they get away with it. 5. The Honduran constitution was written under a military junta’s eye to forestall any political threat to elite privileges. Anything that seems likely to “re-write” it is worth doing. 6. So what if he “has a hard-on for people like Chavez”? (Which is bullshit, but just for the sake of argument.) Chavez has his bad points, no question, he is in some ways a thug and in some ways a clown. (I mean, Halloween an instance of “American cultural imperialism”? :rolleyes: Lighten up, Hugo!) But he is unmistakeably the people’s choice; he is **not** a dictator (yet); he is still the best president Venezuela has ever had (not that that sets the bar very high); and his “Bolivarian Revolution” might yet produce the first serious experiment with democratic socialism (as distinct from Communism, and as distinct from social democracy) that the world has **ever** seen. That’s worth trying, at any rate. Not that it has much to do with anything Zelaya tried to do, or could have done, or could yet do, in Honduras. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/28 "2009-10-08T03:31:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. > 2. So what if he “has a hard-on for people like Chavez”? (Which is bullshit, but just for the sake of argument.) Chavez has his bad points, no question, he is in some ways a thug and in some ways a clown. (I mean, Halloween an instance of “American cultural imperialism”? :rolleyes: Lighten up, Hugo!) But he is unmistakeably the people’s choice; he is **not** a dictator (yet);. Chavez is silencing anyone who criticises him. He did this after making the job of President an open ended office. He’s a dictator in training and Manuel Zelaya was trying to repeat the process. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/29 "2009-10-08T03:44:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Chavez is silencing anyone who criticises him. He did this after making the job of President an open ended office. He’s a dictator in training and Manuel Zelaya was trying to repeat the process. I’ll wait for better evidence than your say so. [http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22288](http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22288) > [@](#): > > MacShane also misrepresents the reality of press freedom in Venezuela. In fact, there is a much more oppositional media in Venezuela than in the United States, and a much greater range of debate in the major media. This can be seen simply by looking at the most important media in both countries. In the U.S., for example, not even the most aggressive right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would present the idea that the President should be lynched. But Globovision, one of the largest-audience TV networks in Venezuela, had a show where a guest did just that. > > This is not an isolated example in Venezuela. The media there routinely broadcasts reporting and commentary that would not be allowed under FCC rules here. And the vast majority of the media in Venezuela is still controlled by the right-wing opposition. This fact was buried in a footnote in Human Rights Watch’s highly prejudiced and misleading 230 page report on Venezuela. **The footnote acknowledged that RCTV, which lost its broadcast license for a long list of offenses that would have landed its owners in jail in the United States, still has a cable audience that is bigger than all of the Venezuelan state television combined.** By contrast the real dictator (Micheletti) in Honduras has even prevented the use of cable by \*\*confiscating \*\*the equipment of the opposition media. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/30 "2009-10-08T08:04:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’ll wait for better evidence than your say so. > > [http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22288](http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22288) > > By contrast the real dictator (Micheletti) in Honduras has even prevented the use of cable by \*\*confiscating \*\*the equipment of the opposition media. You published a left wing organization’s opinion over Human Rights Watch? [from Human Rights Watch](http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/31/venezuela-repeal-measures-aimed-critics): **Minister Cabello also proposed new regulations that state that any cable channel with more than 30 percent Venezuelan-produced programming (including shows and advertisements) would be compelled to transmit President Chávez’s speeches live at his request, and would be subject to Venezuelan media laws, including the Law on Social Responsibility.** Chavez is nothing but a power hungry socialist thug. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/31 "2009-10-08T09:37:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I understand what you’re trying to say but it wasn’t a random military coup. It was directed by the Supreme Court and sanctioned by Congress. Admittedly the congressional sanction was after the fact it still had some basis in political legitimacy similar to impeachment. Admittedly the restriction of freedoms that followed didn’t paint a very good picture. Coups are rarely _ **random** _ so I fail to see that as any kind of argument at all, and the behaviour after say the initial event rather undermine a genuine protecting democracy argument. Contra Brain et al whitewashing, I do not see Zelaya as particularly defendable _as such_, however the Hondurans did not have to go down the full coup a la 1980s route. They chose to. A more proper impeachment and democratic response is easily imaginable. Two wrongs - again - do not make a democratic right. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. I like to see the record kept straight. Actually you rather prefer to put out a vision heavily spun through a hard Left lens, although I agree with point 2 > [@](#): > > 1. I don’t like seeing “anti-American socialist” used as a content-free all-purpose beating-stick. Shoulldn’t that kind of bullshit have died with the Cold War?! But the Americans seem to have a hard time giving up the Cold War, something like old men liking to relive their glory days. > [@](#): > > 1. Zelaya is not a “wanna-be dictator,” either, or at least there’s no real reason to think so. At worst, he’s a not-terribly-competent politician in a not-terribly-competent country/region, with slightly better intentions than those who have supplanted him. Bollocks. There are plenty of “real” reasons to think so (dismissals, charging ahead despite clear contrary legal rulings, etc). At best he was merely incompetent. And the “better intentions” … whatever. > [@](#): > > 1. The Honduran constitution was written under a military junta’s eye to forestall any political threat to elite privileges. Anything that seems likely to “re-write” it is worth doing. At least your true colours show on this. > [@Magiver](#): > > You published a left wing organization’s opinion over Human Rights Watch? > > [from Human Rights Watch](http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/31/venezuela-repeal-measures-aimed-critics): > **Minister Cabello also proposed new regulations that state that any cable channel with more than 30 percent Venezuelan-produced programming (including shows and advertisements) would be compelled to transmit President Chávez’s speeches live at his request, and would be subject to Venezuelan media laws, including the Law on Social Responsibility.** > > Chavez is nothing but a power hungry socialist thug. Agreed, but that does not make counter-coups the proper response. Nor make it proper to excuse them. The proper response if one supports democratic culture is to tell both sides they’re wrong and idiots to boot. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/32 "2009-10-08T15:42:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You published a left wing organization’s opinion over Human Rights Watch? Yes, one that just mentions the fact that all media in the USA \*\*forgot \*\*to report that right wing media in Venezuela still reaches more Venezuelans via cable. And that left wing organization also quoted that same Human rights organization. Besides resorting to fallacies (killing the messenger), you are also not just showing better evidence but evidence \*\*already \*\*seen only in part by many in the USA. The fact was that virtually all reports in the USA regarding that subject only mentioned the closing of the stations, **that was not the whole truth** , and the piece you quoted is just a proposal. Even with that, the right wing media and even media groups that were accused to being left wing for supporting democracy in Venezuela (they were against the coup in Venezuela), like the quoted V-headline by Narconews, continue to make posts critical of the current Venezuelan government. > **[Vheadline – News](http://vheadline.com/)** But once again, the current dictator in Honduras **did not go to the courts** to \*\*completely \*\*close the opposition stations, he confiscated the equipment and ordered police to take over the stations. Why is it that we should assign the same behavior (a pre-crime indeed) to Zelaya? No, It is clear that this is not a “pox in both your houses” situation, we should be actively going against the dictatorship in Honduras. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/33 "2009-10-08T16:07:44Z")
A reporter from Narconews asked Amado Lopez, the station owner of channel 36, about the current situation. > **[Narco News: Esdras Amado López Explains Increasing Lack of Chemistry between...](https://www.narconews.com/Issue60/article3865.html)** > [@](#): > > In Amado López’ view, the station’s rapid popularity was a result of the fact that the non-elite of Honduras were not accustomed to seeing the problems in their barrios addressed on television and that no one was accustomed to seeing live sessions of Congress. Currently in charge of approximately 60 employees nationwide, Amado López joked that the decision to make Channel 36 a news station was due in part to the lack of sufficient resources for an entertainment station and that Micheletti’s delays in starting Congressional sessions helped to fill up air time. Filling up air time has become less of a challenge in the aftermath of the June 28 coup, during which Zelaya’s removal from the country coincided with Channel 36’s removal from the air and Amado López’ retreat into hiding. > > Broadcasting rights were subsequently restored, although repeated electricity cuts and the application of acid to the station’s transmitters continued to be matters of concern, as did death threats, satellite blockage, and Micheletti’s appeal to banks and cellular phone companies to withdraw advertising from Channel 36. The various forms of interference were denounced by the news channel to the National Telecommunications Commission and the Public Ministry, which Amado López claimed had yet to investigate the complaints as opponents of the coup were apparently the only ones subject to immediate investigation. The term “media terrorism” was meanwhile revealed not to mean “terrorism of the media” in Micheletti’s lexicon but rather Channel 36’s newsflash on September 21 that Zelaya was in Honduras and not in a hotel suite in Managua as sworn by Micheletti. > > Channel 36 owner and journalist Esdras Amado López. > As for non-media terrorism occurring a week later, prospects for the return of Channel 36’s confiscated equipment – the current condition of which is unknown – were cast into doubt at an October 5 press conference at the presidential palace. There Micheletti revealed additional lexical idiosyncrasies such as that his “completely revoked emergency decree” did not mean that his emergency decree had been completely revoked, and instead meant that Channel 36 would have to submit to a judicial process in order to be a channel again. > > Amado López questioned definitions of judicial process that consisted of confiscating inanimate objects that had not committed crimes and additionally invoked Article 73 of the Constitution, which had not been suspended by the emergency decree and prohibited media closures unless it had been determined by authorities that said media had failed to conform to the law. Channel 36’s conformity to the law is seemingly upheld by the coup authorities’ determination that it has incited insurrection, which Article 3 of the Constitution calls for in situations involving usurper governments. > > **The owner of Channel 36 maintained that the decree had not succeeded in silencing the people of Honduras, who he explained continued to speak to him on a regular basis in Tegucigalpa in order to convey their sympathies; additional noise had also apparently been made in certain villages, where inhabitants had misplaced the blame for Channel 36’s disappearance and shouted at local television companies. Declaring the coup unsustainable, Amado López laughed that he had turned on golpista radio that morning to discover that an announcer who had just weeks before been rejoicing at Honduran riddance of Zelaya was now claiming that Zelaya was his friend.** Nice photo in the article of military thugs bravely protecting the Honduran people from the “terrorist media” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/34 "2009-10-08T17:10:26Z")
It would be worth pointing out again that the Congressional Law Library’s report to Congress says that that the deposing of Zelaya was carried out legally within the confines of the Honduran constitution. The only thing illegal about this alleged ‘coup’ was the removal of Zelaya from the country. Therefore, Zelaya may have the right to some sort of restitution for his illegal exile, but he has no right to reclaim his place as leader of the country. It’s also worth pointing out that even if Zelaya had remained in power, there would be an election next month in which he would not be eligible to run. So it seems to me that the proper resolution to this conflict is to carry out that election (as the current government plans to do), and let the results fall where they may. There will be plenty of international observers there making sure the election is carried out fairly. It baffles me why the U.S. has suggested that it will not recognize the results of that election unless Zelaya is reinstated first. That’s simply ridiculous. It’s also not going to happen. There’s no way Zelaya will be reinstated before the November elections. The Obama administration had a perfect opportunity to back away from this crisis by changing its position to an insistence on a free and fair election, but it’s refused to do so. As a result, it will be in the position of watching a democratic election take place, then refusing to recognize the winner. That’s simply bizarre foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/35 "2009-10-08T17:15:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It would be worth pointing out again that the Congressional Law Library’s report to Congress says that that the deposing of Zelaya was carried out legally within the confines of the Honduran constitution. The only thing illegal about this alleged ‘coup’ was the removal of Zelaya from the country. Therefore, Zelaya may have the right to some sort of restitution for his illegal exile, but he has no right to reclaim his place as leader of the country. > > It’s also worth pointing out that even if Zelaya had remained in power, there would be an election next month in which he would not be eligible to run. So it seems to me that the proper resolution to this conflict is to carry out that election (as the current government plans to do), and let the results fall where they may. There will be plenty of international observers there making sure the election is carried out fairly. > > It baffles me why the U.S. has suggested that it will not recognize the results of that election unless Zelaya is reinstated first. That’s simply ridiculous. It’s also not going to happen. There’s no way Zelaya will be reinstated before the November elections. > > The Obama administration had a perfect opportunity to back away from this crisis by changing its position to an insistence on a free and fair election, but it’s refused to do so. As a result, it will be in the position of watching a democratic election take place, then refusing to recognize the winner. That’s simply bizarre foreign policy. It is worth pointing out that everything you say here (1) has been debated in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530757) and (2) is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Zelaya is an “anti-American socialist.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/36 "2009-10-08T17:16:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It would be worth pointing out again that the Congressional Law Library’s report to Congress says that that the deposing of Zelaya was carried out legally within the confines of the Honduran constitution. The only thing illegal about this alleged ‘coup’ was the removal of Zelaya from the country. Therefore, Zelaya may have the right to some sort of restitution for his illegal exile, but he has no right to reclaim his place as leader of the country. > > It’s also worth pointing out that even if Zelaya had remained in power, there would be an election next month in which he would not be eligible to run. So it seems to me that the proper resolution to this conflict is to carry out that election (as the current government plans to do), and let the results fall where they may. There will be plenty of international observers there making sure the election is carried out fairly. :rolleyes: Even the UN has withdrawn support for the next elections as not being proper under the current circumstances, even by “removing” the decree on Monday the fact is that the current regime in Honduras continues to repress the media and the people. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/37 "2009-10-08T17:24:55Z")
And yet they’re happy to deal with the government of Iran, which clearly rigged its last election, and with the governments in the middle east which don’t even allow elections. This says far more about the current UN than it does about the Honduran government. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/38 "2009-10-08T17:41:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And yet they’re happy to deal with the government of Iran, which clearly rigged its last election, and with the governments in the middle east which don’t even allow elections. > > This says far more about the current UN than it does about the Honduran government. That is likewise irrelevant, etc., but, since you brought it up, it comes under the heading of picking your fights. E.g., in the context of Iranian politics, open U.S. support for the opposition would do them about as much good as a Soviet endorsement would have done Adlai Stevenson’s presidential campaign in 1952. (And I don’t recall the UN endorsing or certifying as fair the latest election results there, BTW.) In the case of Honduras, OTOH, the coup regime is very new, very unpopular, and international pressure actually has the potential to destabilize it. And, of course, having free and fair elections, or elections of any kind, is not a condition of UN membership and never has been. That does not mean the UN cannot properly issue an official report on the fairness of a given election that takes place. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/39 "2009-10-08T18:57:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This says far more about the current UN than it does about the Honduran government. It is not only the UN, the American states and OAS are mentioning that it is for the lack of negotiation and repression that the next elections should not be recognized. > **[Arias warns Honduran elections won't be recognized ⋆ The Costa Rica News](https://thecostaricanews.com/arias-warns-honduran-elections-wont-be-recognized/)** > > Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias on Tuesday commended the interim president of Honduras for saying he will reverse an emergency decree suspending civil liberties in his country > [@](#): > > CORAL GABLES, Fla. — Costa Rica’s President Oscar Arias on Tuesday commended the interim president of Honduras for saying he will reverse an emergency decree suspending civil liberties in his country. > But he warned that the results of the Nov. 29 presidential election in Honduras would not be internationally recognized if it is held while interim President Robert Micheletti’s government is in charge. > > Arias said Micheletti’s government “has not moved an inch” in negotiations to return ousted President Manuel Zelaya with limited authority. > > He called the June 28 coup that propelled Micheletti to power a “dramatic, historical backward step” that needs to be corrected through free and transparent elections under Zelaya’s government. > > “It’s the assurance of the continuity of democracy in Latin America,” Arias said. “The cost of failure of leaving a coup d’etat unpunished is setting up a bad precedent for the region.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/40 "2009-10-08T21:42:17Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > That is a profoundly stupid question. > > The unconstitutional means are pretty clear, Chavez style rolling coup could be imagined (one builds support over time, leveraging the poll), pull over some disaffected officers, etc. :dubious: And this is bullshit. At the time of the coup, Zelaya had not even the popularity to get re-elected if he could have run. And the military and the elite hated him. Who does that leave, to support a “rolling coup,” and by what means? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681.md?page=1)