U.S. calls Honduran coup a coup, cuts aid, might not recognize November election results

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

So, would you be happy to see a Honduran election in November, under the condition that A) Zelaya would be allowed to run as a candidate.

Cite? Or do you want to be once again recognized as an ignorant on this? Zelaya can not run on the next election.

@Sam_Stone

and B) the election were closely monitored by outside agencies?

That is the norm after a history of coups and electoral fraud, yes.

@Sam_Stone

Obama’s going to be on the losing end of another issue if these elections take place and his administration refuses to recognize them.

No, if there are no observers and the Honduran rightists continue with the repression, the new government should not be recognized.

@Sam_Stone

So it might be a strategically better option to come out now and say that whatever happened in the past, the election in November was scheduled long ago, and this is the Honduran people’s chance to right a wrong if that’s what they think it was. He can express worry that the new regime will rig the election, and demand oversight from international inspectors to make sure the election is carried out fairly.

Would that be okay with you?

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.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/honduras/page.do?id=1011167

Honduras Human Rights

…

There has been widespread unrest in the country since the coup d’etat with frequent clashes between the police, military and civilian protestors. At least two people have died after being shot during protests.

Beatings and mass arrests are being used by the de facto government of Honduras as a way of punishing people for voicing their opposition to the military-backed coup d’etat in June. Scores of interviews by an Amnesty International delegation on the ground told the same story of beatings and mass arrests by the police, of media workers and human rights defenders being targeted and female protesters suffering gender based violence. » More actions

[Sam_Stone]

@GIGObuster

Cite? Or do you want to be once again recognized as an ignorant on this? Zelaya can not run on the next election.

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?

That is the norm after a history of coups and electoral fraud, yes.

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.

No, if there are no observers and the Honduran rightists continue with the repression, the new government should not be recognized.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Olentzero]

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.

@Sam Stone

You want to interfere in the political process in that country, and give support and funding to groups who agree with your principles?

Is it only acceptable to you if the US government does it?

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

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.

It will ensure the election will be a fair one or a recognized one.

@Sam_Stone

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 are 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?

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.

@Sam_Stone

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.

:rolleyes:

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.

@Sam_Stone

If only you had the same sort of consideration for democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela as you do in Honduras.

:rolleyes:

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.

@Sam_Stone

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?

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.

@Sam_Stone

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.

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.

@Sam_Stone

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.

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)

@Sam_Stone

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?

Gee, now human rights are controversial principles? Really, stop listen to right wing media, it does remove bits of one’s humanity nowadays.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, in Colombia (a key U.S. ally in the region, and, together with Mexico (and Honduras, for the moment), almost the only country in Latin America that does not now have a left-wing or center-left government), Congress just approved a referendum to abolish presidential term limits. If it passes, incumbent President Alvaro Uribe would be able to run for a third term in the May 2010 elections.

So, is it OK if a RW does it?

New thread here.

[Ludovic]

@BrainGlutton

BTW, in Colombia (a key U.S. ally in the region, and, together with Mexico (and Honduras, for the moment), almost the only country in Latin America that does not now have a left-wing or center-left government), Congress just approved a referendum to abolish presidential term limits. If it passes, incumbent President Alvaro Uribe would be able to run for a third term in the May 2010 elections.

So, is it OK if a RW does it?

I was unaware that the Honduran Congress approved a referendum to abolish presidential term limits.

[BrainGlutton]

@bri1600bv

They have a new election in November, why not just accept the results of that election w/o the dictator wannabe who tried to rip up the constitution getting his “vote”.

Because it’s very obvious the army and elite class are going to control that election the way the Guardian Council and Revolutionary Guard Corps control elections in Iran.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

I was unaware that the Honduran Congress approved a referendum to abolish presidential term limits.

If you’ll read the linked story, it’s not entirely clear the Colombian Congress “approved” such a thing either.

But the vote, which has been dogged by allegations of irregularities, has angered critics and even some of Uribe’s staunchest allies. They worry that if Uribe wins a third term, it could endanger Colombian democracy in the same way that many of the region’s leftist leaders have done in recent years.

<snip>

Questions over the financing of the petition campaign that collected signatures in favor of the referendum and the way the measure was voted in Congress led the Supreme Court to open an investigation into the behavior of 86 lawmakers. In its passage through Congress, the ambiguous wording of the referendum question was changed to make clear that the president could aspire to a third consecutive term, rather than after four-year hiatus. And opposition lawmakers said that government officials were offering political favors to members of Congress in exchange for voting for the referendum bill.

On the same day the referendum bill passed, an arrest warrant was issued for a senator charged with receiving political favors from government officials in 2004, when Congress approved Uribe’s first reelection. Two other lawmakers were convicted of accepting favors to change their vote in favor of reelection in 2004.

Says Ms. Ungar: “There are a lot of reasons to believe the constitutional court could reject [the bill].”

[BrainGlutton]

This analysis from The Nation provides some perspective as to what this is really all about:

What specifically did Zelaya do to conjure these malevolent spirits of the cold war past? The US press has focused on his efforts to build support for a constitutional assembly, misrepresenting the effort as a power grab when in fact the proposal to revise the Constitution was broadly supported by social movements as an effort to democratize Honduras’s notoriously exclusive political system. The business community didn’t like Zelaya because he raised the minimum wage. Conservative evangelicals and Catholics–including Opus Dei, a formidable presence in Honduras–detested him because he refused to ban the “morning-after” pill. The mining, hydroelectric and biofuel sector didn’t like him because he didn’t put state funds and land at their disposal. The law-and-order crowd hated him because he apologized on behalf of the state for a program of “social cleansing” that took place in the 1990s, which included the execution of street children and gang members. And the generals didn’t like it when he tried to assert executive control over the military. Similar to the armed forces in Guatemala and El Salvador, the Honduran military after the cold war diversified its portfolio, with its officers investing heavily in both legitimate and illegitimate businesses, such as the narcotics trade, illegal logging, and illicit adoptions. In 1993 the general who carried out the coup, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez–trained in the School of the Americas–had been arrested and charged with running a car-theft ring.

Zelaya likewise moved to draw down Washington’s military presence; Honduras, alone among Central American countries, hosts a permanent detachment of US troops at the Soto Cano air force base, a holdover from the Contra war. Zelaya’s government also picked at cold war wounds not yet healed. Among his top advisers are Milton Jiménez Puerto–who in the 1980s was one of the students tortured by Joya–and Patricia Rodas, daughter of Modesto Rodas Alvarado Zamora. In the 1960s Rodas Alvarado represented the developmentalist wing of the Liberal Party, and in 1963 he was prevented from becoming president in a coup Hondurans insist was engineered by the CIA. Zelaya himself comes from a family with a deep history in the cold war: some in Honduras speculate that his reformism stems from a desire to atone his father’s involvement in the 1975 massacre of fifteen activists, mostly peasants and two priests–one from Colombia, the other from Madison, Wisconsin–on his family’s hacienda, in the northeastern department of Olancho. In the 1980s, an anti-coup activist told me, Zelaya was one of the few Liberal Party members to speak out against the Contra war, which the CIA organized and ran from Honduras. “History is pushing Mel,” a journalist, critical of Zelaya during his tenure for a certain degree of demagogy yet firmly in favor of his return, told me.

And, from In These Times:

The Latin Node scandal may touch on one of the key issues behind the coup. Despite the media focus on Zelaya’s supposed agenda to get term limits overturned, one of the real goals of his proposed constitutional reform was to re-extend national control over Honduras’ telecom system. The officials who Latin Node allegedly bribed were executives of the national company Hondutel, who apparently took kickbacks to allow Latin Node to provide digital telephone service in Honduras.

In an April 7 article that he wrote for Miami’s Spanish-language Nuevo Herald, Reich reminded readers that Zelaya’s nephew, Marcelo Chimirri, was a high official at Hondutel and had been accused of various illicit practices. An outraged Zelaya went on national radio and TV to announce that he would sue Reich for defamation: “We will proceed with legal action for calumny against this man, Otto Reich, who has been waging a two-year campaign against Honduras.”

In January, the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa denied Chimirri an entry visa into the United States, citing “serious cases of corruption.” This wasn’t Chimirri’s first attempt to get a visa. Zelaya had complained to Washington a month earlier about the visa issue, urging U.S. officials to “revise the procedure by which visas are cancelled or denied … as a means of [applying] pressure against … people who hold different beliefs or ideologies which pose no threat to the U.S.”

Bush-appointee Ambassador to Honduras Charles Ford also weighed in, telling the Honduran newspaper La Tribuna that the U.S. government was investigating North American telecom carriers for allegedly paying bribes to Honduran officials to engage in so-called “gray traffic”—the illicit bypassing of legal telecommunications channels. He recommended greater competition as a means to combat this supposed abuse.

The Honduran business elite has long sought to privatize Hondutel. In the late 1990s, none other than Roberto Micheletti—the current coup-installed president—was Hondutel’s CEO. Nikolas Kozloff, author of Revolution!: South America and the Rise of the New Left, wrote in a commentary at BuzzFlash.com:

At the time, Micheletti favored privatizing the firm. Micheletti later went on to become president of Honduras’ National Congress. In that capacity, he was at odds with Zelaya, who opposed the so-called ‘telecom reform’ that could open the door to outright privatization.

Chimirri was arrested by the new regime on July 2, 2009. The Arcadia Foundation did not respond to repeated requests for a statement. In a July 9 Miami Herald op-ed titled, “I Did Not Orchestrate Coup in Honduras,” [Otto] Reich* denies being the “architect” of the coup — which he also denies was a coup, and defends as “legal and constitutional.”

The website of Reich’s consulting firm, Otto Reich Associates, lists among its former clients AT&T and Bell Atlantic (now Verizon)—both of which would be possible purchasers of a privatized Hondutel.

*Otto Reich.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

So, would you be happy to see a Honduran election in November, under the condition that A) Zelaya would be allowed to run as a candidate, and B) the election were closely monitored by outside agencies?

I would add, C) the armed forces are to play no role whatsoever, as they have in the past. In Honduras the armed forces quite openly (and heretofore constitutionally) run the elections.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling_bandit

Just for starters, Zelaya was attempting to screw wildly with the polity in order to stay in office. Judging by the fact they found the results of his planned referendum on legitimizing his rule before the referendum occured . . .

Cite?

[BrainGlutton]

@Curtis LeMay

Look, it’s already happened now anyway. And Honduras now has a more friendly President, if it’s already happened just accept the situation.

:dubious: Because “Honduras now has a more friendly President” to the U.S.? That’s Cold War thinking; I should hope it would be dead and buried by now.

[BrainGlutton]

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.

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

Because it’s very obvious the army and elite class are going to control that election the way the Guardian Council and Revolutionary Guard Corps control elections in Iran.

Also, when one takes Iran into consideration one can see that many right wingers are ignoring the big picture.

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News

On Tuesday, former Clinton administration official Lawrence J. Haas picked up on this same theme.

“History suggests the United States would be wise to align itself with the forces of democracy, rather than with creaky autocracies in the Middle East and elsewhere whose days could well be numbered,” Haas wrote in his syndicated column. “To be sure, authoritarian regimes of late have been digging in, and they have secured some recent successes. But their victories cannot obscure the larger reality – that democracy has spread far and wide in recent decades. It will spread further. And when it does, the United States must not find itself on the wrong side of history.”

Fair enough, but when Zelaya took his place in the Honduran seat on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday, he was greeted with sustained applause by the representatives of the world community. They condemned his removal and demanded the “immediate and unconditional” restoration of Honduras’ president. Obama had put the United States foursquare behind that proposition, and it led to an immediate payoff.

Zelaya’s loony pal Hugo Chavez had been railing that Washington was behind the Honduran coup. Zelaya laid that one to rest himself.

“The United States,” he said, “has changed a great deal.”

[BrainGlutton]

More from The Nation: Exclusive interview with Zelaya, 09/04/09. (After the Admin’s official decision to condemn the coup and cut off aid to Honduras.)

[Sam_Stone]

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

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:

1. 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.

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.

@Sam_Stone

2. 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.

Irrelevant.

@Sam_Stone

3. 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.

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.

@Sam_Stone

4. 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.

Once again, the result of a flawed constitution, but we should not change it. :dubious:

@Sam_Stone

5. 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.

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!

@Sam_Stone

6. 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.

7. The military arrest Zelaya and fly him out of the country.

How can you justify 6 and 7 at the same time?

@Sam_Stone

Any dispute over those facts? With cites, please?

You gave none, I already did on other discussions.

Honduras: Who's correct?

@Sam_Stone

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.

:rolleyes:

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)

[Sam_Stone]

@GIGObuster

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.

So you agree that on point #1, I’m correct.

Irrelevant.

So you agree that on point #2, I’m correct.

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.

So you agree that on point #3, I’m correct.

Once again, the result of a flawed constitution, but we should not change it. :dubious:

So you agree that on point #4, I’m correct.

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!

So you agree that on point #5, I’m correct.

How can you justify 6 and 7 at the same time?

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:

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.

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.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

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.

[shrug] So post an interview with Micheletti.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

So you agree that on point #1, I’m correct.

So you agree that on point #2, I’m correct.

So you agree that on point #3, I’m correct.

So you agree that on point #4, I’m correct.

So you agree that on point #5, I’m correct.

If you want to justify the coup.

@Sam_Stone

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.

And who is telling you this?

@Sam_Stone

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”.