Cite? Or do you want to be once again recognized as an ignorant on this? Zelaya can not run on the next election.
That is the norm after a history of coups and electoral fraud, yes.
No, if there are no observers and the Honduran rightists continue with the repression, the new government should not be recognized.
More than that, a precedent needs to be established that any member of the usurping government should be considered a criminal outside Honduras, even after the election.
And even more support to the Honduran people that want to make changes trough peaceful means in Honduras, that means that even more pressure is needed to make sure that the current and future “governments” respect human rights.
Yes, I said that later in the message, but after reading that you decided to leave this in?
By the way, what are you hoping to accomplish by having Zelaya reinstated now? Why is this such a big deal? He’ll be out of power in two months anyway.
If he WAS reinstated, I would want the same assurances you do regarding election monitoring. His willingness to abrogate the constitution, break into military offices, involve Venezuela in the election process, and ignore his own Supreme Court means I wouldn’t trust an election administered by him to be remotely fair. I would want to make sure that his followers aren’t intimidating people at the polling places, and I would want election monitors to control the movement of the ballot boxes and observe the counting after the election.
Would you agree to that?
Obviously you aren’t going to be convinced that this wasn’t a coup, but it’s a very strange sort of coup that involves the Supreme Court and the majority of the government of all parties, including the party currently in power. It’s also a strange coup where the person who replaces the ousted leader is the one constitutionally designated to do so, and who upon taking office immediately announced that an upcoming democratic election would be held as scheduled.
If only you had the same sort of consideration for democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela as you do in Honduras.
And then what? What’s your remedy then? Put Zelaya back in power, when the constitution doesn’t allow for it? Hold another election? What?
This is ridiculous. The only thing the government did wrong that I can tell is that it expelled Zelaya from the country. Also from what I understand, this was a decision made by the military leadership at that time. If anyone should be held liable, it might be them. But treating every member of the Honduran government as a criminal? That’s insane.
The proper remedy for the Government’s over-reach in exiling Zelaya probably centers around some sort of financial damages being awarded to him, and the careers of the officers who kicked him out of the country ended.
Just what does that mean? You want to interfere in the political process in that country, and give support and funding to groups who agree with your principles? Or what?
He’s not allowed to run again; the current constitution imposes a one-term limit (not sure if it’s lifetime or not, but I believe it to be so).
Even with just over a month left of his term, I’d rather see Zelaya reinstated before the election. He was elected according to the constitution and was removed from office in direct violation thereof. It’s already been established that all he was doing was gauging public opinion with the July poll; if the public had rejected a November referendum there is nothing he could have done about it.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t trust the Micheletti government further than I could throw it. There is no reason to expect that they’d allow free and fair elections in the first place, and there’s no reason to expect they’d take any allegations of election fraud from independent observers at all seriously. The Honduran people would have much more chance of righting any wrongs under Zelaya than they would under Micheletti.
Is it only acceptable to you if the US government does it?
It will ensure the election will be a fair one or a recognized one.
Listen to yourself, you are swallowing that a president that has the army, the courts and congress against him will allow that to happen. The rest of the world will not allow it either.
As a Salvadorean I have to tell you that many military governments in El Salvador did the same. Not much with coups, but more with electoral fraud. But even when the military came to power with a coup there was always a good chuck of congress critters supporting it.
I did, I was one of the first to denounce the coup against Chavez. Oh you must had forgotten about that, uh?
In any case many right winger sources told us that Chavez was going to send tanks to remove the governors from other parties that were elected on the last local elections. I’m still waiting.
You are being obtuse now, I already said I don’t care for Zelaya much. He should only get back in power to supervise the election under international observers (what do you think? that observers will not watch him also?) and just pass the power to the new president elect.
No it is not, when one supports a crime and one benefits from it you are an accomplice, and you are ignoring that the longer this goes, it means that organized crime is getting more influence with the current regime as they have become pariahs to the world.
The Micheletti government requested the Interpol to arrest Zelaya, you are really being an ignorant here. (The Interpol told them to take a hike, they are not recognized, sucks to be them)
Gee, now human rights are controversial principles? Really, stop listen to right wing media, it does remove bits of one’s humanity nowadays.
N.B.: The revolutionary feeling now abroad in Honduras is not for Zelaya’s sake, but against a constitution which was drafted under the military junta’s eye to prevent any threat to elite privileges. That is worth overthrowing.
Which does not necessarily mean overthrowing it is worthwhile, of course; revolutions are always risky, and even when the revolutionaries can be sure of winning they can never be sure of how it’s going to turn out.
A revolution in Honduras now would be justified. But it might not be a good idea.
Well, your hard-left cites made had me worried about whether or not their description of events was fair, but I’m glad you cleared it up by getting the opinion of Zelaya. He’d never be biased.
As far as I can tell, these are the absolute facts as to what happened. Tell me which one of these is incorrect:
Zelaya decided to call a constituent aseembly. The Honduran constitution does not allow a constituent assembly to be called without the approval of congress. Congress refused, but Zelaya continued anyway.
Because he had no government support to make ballots, he appealed to his buddy Hugo Chavez, who had them made for him and flown into the country.
The Honduran Supreme Court rules the planned referendum unconstitutional. Elections are run by the military, and the Supreme Court orders the military to abstain from taking part in the referendum in any way.
General Velasquez tells Zelaya that he will not carry out the plan to hold the referendum. Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders that Velasquez be reinstated. Zelaya refuses the order.
Zelaya takes a bunch of supporters, marches into the military warehouse, and takes the ballots, directly defying the supreme court again. They begin handing out the ballots.
The Attorney General announces that Zelaya had repeatedly broken the law and violated his oath of office. He then issues a court order instructing the military to arrest Zelaya.
The military arrest Zelaya and fly him out of the country.
Any dispute over those facts? With cites, please?
Up until Zelaya was removed from the country, it appears to me that the only one breaking laws was Zelaya. He could have stopped at any point until he actually broke into military offices and stole the ballots, and he’d still be in power. There was no ‘coup’. Everything was carried out strictly by the letter of Honduran law, until the point where he was exiled, which appears to be the first instance of over-reach on the part of the military.
It was a vote to call for changes in the constitution, as mentioned before most of the congress has demonstrated to be unwilling to follow the will of the people. If you are stuck with a constitution that does not allow one to impeach the president (The current situation) you need to change the constitution. Is it really ridiculous to say that Hondurans should keep a flawed document that was created during the years of military dictatorships.
Piffle. In El Salvador even if it was demonstrated that an election was fraudulent the reactionary congress and the courts validated the results.
I see the same situation currently in Honduras.
Once again, the result of a flawed constitution, but we should not change it. :dubious:
Once again, useless if the people was not going to vote in favor of it, no, the more you point to this the more I get convinced that the coup plotters knew what was going to be the result. This was voter repression.
Really, the right wing sources have turned voter suppression to be a good thing!
How can you justify 6 and 7 at the same time?
You gave none, I already did on other discussions.
He was also prevented from landing in Honduras even when he was willing to be arrested and face his accusers, the coup government told the military to prevent him from landing. (Too many supporters were waiting for him at the airport and one of them was shot dead)
A false document was produced saying that Zelaya had resigned, why was that important? Because thanks to the flawed constitution they needed to have that resignation to then vote for a replacement.
No, the coup plotters did not follow the law. Zelaya was not allowed to confront his accusers. (Three times! They also stopped him at the border)
I wasn’t ‘justifying’ anything. I was making statements of fact. This is in fact what happened. The Attorney General issued an arrest warrant, and it was carried out. Then the military flew him out of the country.
I do not dispute that the military seems to have overreached in flying him out of the country. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where this is legal. I think Zelaya may be entitled to some restitution for this. However, the proper remedy for this would not be to reinstate a leader who repeatedly showed contempt for his country’s own laws and who repeatedly violated his own constitution, breaking his oath of office.
You talk about the Honduran Constitution as if it’s some nefarious tool to keep right-wing military governments in power. But in fact, there are only three major proscriptions in the constitution: 1) No amendment can change the country’s borders. 2) No amendment can change the rules that prevent the president from serving more than one term, and 3) no amendment can change the rules that require one government to succeed another in a Republican form of government.
These limits were put in place precisely because of Honduras’ history with elected strongmen. They were put in place precisely to prevent someone like Zelaya from pulling shenanigans to get himself installed as ruler for life, as Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.
Furthermore, article 239 of the Constitution prohibits a president from even lobbying for a change to the term limit clause, and any president who even proposes it shall immediately leave office:
These are the rules the Honduran people wanted, because they are tired of being ruled by long-term military rule or strong men. They are the rules Zelaya agreed to when he took his oath of office. He broke them, and as a result he lost the presidency.
He should not have been removed from the country, but the fact that he was does not give him the right to stay in office after repeatedly violating the constitution and ignoring the Supreme Court of his country.
So you are claiming that what a government that got to power with criminal means has to dictate what is proper?
Really, 2 wrongs don’t make it right. And removing a president elect by force is the worst. Stop defending the indefensible. Countries that are next door still have a military and plenty of reactionary congresspeople that are looking at what is happening in Honduras to see how they can get away with if their presidents “misbehave”.