Obama Administration sides with would-be Honduran dictator [Archive]

BeAChooser

28th July 2009, 08:12 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department says it has revoked the diplomatic visas for four Honduran officials working in its interim government.

The announcement comes as the United States has been pressing for Honduras to allow the return of exiled President Manuel Zelaya.

Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/07/obama_is_in_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_acti on_is

Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Cuba’s Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras.

And what troubles these good people? They claim that there was a military coup in Honduras that renders the present government illegal.

Here, in brief, are the facts. You decide.
The president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya, a protege of Hugo Chavez, decided that he wanted to be able to be president for more than his one term that ends this coming January — perhaps for life. However, because the histories of Honduras and Latin America are replete with authoritarians and dictators, Honduras’s constitution absolutely forbids anyone from governing that country for more than one term.

So, Zelaya decided to follow Chavez’s example and find a way to change his country’s constitution. He decided to do this on his own through a referendum, without the congressional authorization demanded by Honduras’s constitution. He even had the ballots printed in Venezuela.

As Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who writes The Americas column in the Wall Street Journal, explains: “A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chavez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela.”

The Honduras Supreme Court ruled Zelaya’s nonbinding referendum unconstitutional, and then instructed the military not to implement the vote as it normally does. When the head of the armed forces obeyed the legal authority, the Honduran Supreme Court, rather than President Zelaya, the president fired him and personally led a mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being safeguarded.*

... snip ...

In order to stop this attempt to subvert the Honduran constitution, while keeping Honduras under the rule of law and preventing a Chavez-like dictatorship from developing in its country, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya. They did so and expelled him to neighboring Costa Rica to prevent certain violence.

Was this a "military coup" as we understand the term? Columnist Mona Charen answered this best: "There was an attempted coup in Honduras, but it was Zelaya who initiated it, not his opponents."

Or, to put in another way: When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?

Thunder

28th July 2009, 09:05 PM

And Bush held hands with the Saudi King. I didn't see you making a fuss about that.

Tsukasa Buddha

28th July 2009, 09:13 PM

Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Cuba’s Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras.Um, if everyone, even people who usually always disagreed, agreed that Honduras is in the wrong... That would make me more likely to think that that is correct.

I guess I don't have the anti-internationalism tin-foil hat on :rolleyes: . Clearly, it is just a sign of... the Illuminati?

But none of this matters to the United Nations, which never met a left-wing tyrant it didn't find appealing. That is why the president of the U.N. General Assembly, a former Sandinista foreign minister, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, accompanied Zelaya in the airplane on Zelaya's first attempt to return to Honduras on July 5. (Brockmann, among his other radical moral positions, is so virulently anti-Israel that the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations threatened not to attend the U.N. Holocaust Memorial Day event if Brockmann showed up.)
And none of this matters to the OAS, which just lifted its ban on Cuba's membership and which says nothing about Chavez's shutting down of Venezuela's opposition radio and television stations.
And none of this matters to the world's left-wing media. Thus, on July 1, a writer for the United Kingdom newspaper The Guardian penned this insight: "There is no excuse for this coup. … The battle between Zelaya and his opponents pits a reform president who is supported by labor unions and social organizations against a Mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite." To the Guardian writer, Zelaya was a "reform president." Lenin's useful idiots never die out.
And the Los Angeles Times editorial page wrote: "Even though the Honduran Congress and military may believe they are defending the country against a would-be dictator, the ends don't justify the means."
Quite a great deal of foolishness in one sentence. That the Los Angeles Times does not believe that Zelaya is a would-be dictator is mind-numbing. As for the cliche that "the ends don't justify the means," in fact they quite often do. Oh, that's right, evil leftists.

joobz

28th July 2009, 09:34 PM

To Summarize.
Obama X something, BAC think it's proof that Obama is Y based upon weblink Z

Where
X = verb
Y = a liar, a cheat, evil, baby eater, commie leftist, anti-american tyrrany bringer, scum of the earth,
Z = random ultra-conservative blogging website.

BeAChooser

28th July 2009, 10:46 PM

So TK ... do you or joobz want to take a stab at the question Prager asked?

When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?

28th July 2009, 10:47 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1

Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/07/obama_is_in_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_acti on_is

hey BAC. Have you any idea what was to be asked in this referendum?
amd why exile someone when he did illegal things? why not arrest him and bring him to justice by a court?
It was a Coup.

28th July 2009, 10:54 PM

btw, here one of Dictator Micheletti's "advisers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joya

BeAChooser

29th July 2009, 12:06 AM

Have you any idea what was to be asked in this referendum?

Do you?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/27/Zelaya-Disputed-Honduran-poll-to-go-on/UPI-34961246102432/

June 27, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, June 27 (UPI) -- Honduran leader Jose Manuel Zelaya says a controversial referendum on extending the term of his presidency will proceed as planned.

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/1123861.html

07.02.09

... snip ...

President Zelaya explained to the world this week that he was overthrown by a military coup for simply attempting to conduct a public opinion poll. (:rolleyes:) He added that he was about to perform nothing more than what a regular polling firm such as Gallup does on a regular basis (:rolleyes:) when he was violently escorted out of the country by machine-gun-wielding soldiers.

Zelaya also explained that 37 countries and the Organization of American States had sent observers to see how he conducted the poll. Finally, he said that the poll was nonbinding and that it was simply intended to ask Hondurans a couple of questions, including whether he should be allowed to stand for reelection in November and whether a Constituent Assembly ought to be called to modify the constitution.

Apparently, Hondurans aren't as stupid do you think they are. :D

And by the way ...

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/news//2009/06/26/honduras_heads_toward_crisis_over_referendum?page= 2

The constitution, approved in 1982 as Honduras was throwing off two decades of nearly uninterrupted military rule, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

And get this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/smoking_gun_zelaya_computers_h.html

July 19, 2009

Smoking Gun: Zelaya Computers had 'certified' results for referendum that was never held

This has been all over the Honduran and Central American press for more than 24 hours but, as Alberto de la Cruz of Babalu Blog points out, no English speaking wire service or media has picked up on it yet.

Authorities seized several computers used by former president Zelaya that contained "official" results of the constitutional referendum that was never held showing his bid to change the law so that he could run for office again winning easily.

De la Cruz translates the story from a Catalan Newspaper (Europa Press):

Several computers containing the results of the referendum Zelaya wanted to conduct are seized at the Presidential Palace

The National Directors of Criminal Investigation seized various computers from the Presidential Palace that had recorded the supposed results of the referendum to reform the constitution that the deposed leader, Manuel Zelaya, was planning to conduct on July 28, the day he was removed from office.

The official investigation now deals with the possible crime of fraud and falsification of documents due to the fact that some of the certified voting results had been filled with the personal information of individuals that supposedly participated in the failed referendum that did not take place because of the coup.

One of the district attorneys that participated in the operation that took place this Friday showed reporters an official voting result from the Technical Institute Luis Bogran, of Tegucigalpa, in which the specific number of people that participated in table 345, where there were 550 ballots, 450 of which were votes in favor of Zelaya's proposal and 30 were against, in addition to 20 blank ballots and 30 ballots, which were nullified.

The seizure took place on the third floor of the building attached to the Ministry of the Presidency that had been rented to the ex-minister of the Interior, Enrique Flores Lanza. The deputy district attorney, Roberto Ramirez, declared this area as a "crime scene" and, although he did not want to provide further details, said that further evidence had been found that could be categorized as crimes of fraud, embezzlement of funds, falsification of documents, and abuse of authority.

http://www.hacer.org/report/2009/07/honduras-ousting-chavez-wannabe-by-john.html

What happened in Honduras was not a standard coup. The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office. The Congress, albeit after his detention and exile, voted unanimously for his removal and confirmed his constitutionally mandated successor to fill the remainder of his term in office.

Prior to his exile, Zelaya had insisted on a referendum to allow for his reelection in direct violation of the Honduran constitution. In other words, he set out to perpetuate himself in office. ... snip ...

... snip ...

Shredding constitutional prohibitions to presidential reelection has become a popular political ploy in several Latin American countries in recent years.

And speak of the devil ...

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1721803

July 20, 2009

MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) - Nicaraguan opposition lawmakers on Monday condemned a public appeal for constitutional changes by President Daniel Ortega as an attempt to extend term limits and eventually allow the leftist leader's re-election.

I wonder. Are you and Obama in favor of that, too?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/CastroChavezOrtegaObama-big.jpg

:D

29th July 2009, 12:45 AM

any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

so they have no freedom of expression, and you proudly support that. gratulations.

The referendum merely asked the people of Honduras, if they want to change the constitution. allowing re elections was just one part of the changes Zelaya wanted.

i think he should be impeached and trialed for ignoring the SC decision. and i am in favor of allowing re elections. the people must decide who they want as their president, and if that is the same guy they had before, thats fine for me. The way Zelaya choosed was and is wrong, no question.
but the way the coup leaders took was just as wrong.

But you dont mind democracy and the will of the people when it is against the lesftists eh?

But i guess you would also like to have that Kenyan guy exiled from the US, isnt it?

btw, BAC, you as a supporter of Dictator Micheletti, what do you think about his repressive actions and violation of basic human rights in Honduras at this very moment?
maybe Obama is lining up with a wanna be Dictator, you on the other hand are siding with a full blown Dictator.

gtc

29th July 2009, 01:31 AM

And Bush held hands with the Saudi King. I didn't see you making a fuss about that.

That is a little cynical.:)

Can't both Presidents be in the wrong?

29th July 2009, 03:10 AM

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=3ab395e4bd571c1becdcf 842cf03c7fd

Robster, FCD

29th July 2009, 03:11 AM

Wait, so constitutions can't be changed?

29th July 2009, 03:18 AM

Wait, so constitutions can't be changed?

not by leftists :D

Upchurch

29th July 2009, 03:35 AM

29th July 2009, 03:56 AM

Do you?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/27/Zelaya-Disputed-Honduran-poll-to-go-on/UPI-34961246102432/

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/1123861.html

Apparently, Hondurans aren't as stupid do you think they are. :D

And by the way ...

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/news//2009/06/26/honduras_heads_toward_crisis_over_referendum?page= 2

And get this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/smoking_gun_zelaya_computers_h.html

http://www.hacer.org/report/2009/07/honduras-ousting-chavez-wannabe-by-john.html

And speak of the devil ...

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1721803

I wonder. Are you and Obama in favor of that, too?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/CastroChavezOrtegaObama-big.jpg

:D
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/honduras-military-coup-blow-democracy

leftysergeant

29th July 2009, 05:21 AM

So TK ... do you or joobz want to take a stab at the question Prager asked?Prager is an ignorant turd. People were killed. Prager is hereby requested to keep his mouth shut until his brain is fully engaged.

BeAChooser

29th July 2009, 06:54 AM

so they have no freedom of expression, and you proudly support that.

As compared to say ... Cuba? Venezuela? :D

The referendum merely asked the people of Honduras, if they want to change the constitution. allowing re elections was just one part of the changes Zelaya wanted.

But it was one of the changes Zelaya wanted.

But i guess you would also like to have that Kenyan guy exiled from the US, isnt it?

Nice red herring. Or is that a strawman? :D

you as a supporter of Dictator Micheletti

Odd sort of dictator.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/1432

Micheletti announced from the beginning that he would only serve until the end of Zelaya's term in January. Presidential elections are scheduled for November.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/07/12/2009-07-12T230354Z_01_N12504747_RTRIDST_0_MICHELETTI-PROMISES-ELECTIONS-ON-NOV-29-AS-SCHEDULED-OR-EARLIE.html

MICHELETTI PROMISES ELECTIONS ON NOV. 29 AS SCHEDULED, OR EARLIER

:D

what do you think about his repressive actions and violation of basic human rights in Honduras at this very moment?

As compared to those in Cuba and Venezuela? ;)

maybe Obama is lining up with a wanna be Dictator, you on the other hand are siding with a full blown Dictator.

Really? Then why's he holding elections as scheduled and said he's willing to step down as long as the "wanna be" doesn't return? :D

leftysergeant

29th July 2009, 08:13 AM

As compared to say ... Cuba? Venezuela?

Let's try Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Who is getting killed by the interregnum in Nicaragua or Venezuela?

29th July 2009, 08:42 AM

As compared to say ... Cuba? Venezuela? :D

But it was one of the changes Zelaya wanted.

Nice red herring. Or is that a strawman? :D

Odd sort of dictator.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/1432

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/07/12/2009-07-12T230354Z_01_N12504747_RTRIDST_0_MICHELETTI-PROMISES-ELECTIONS-ON-NOV-29-AS-SCHEDULED-OR-EARLIE.html

:D

As compared to those in Cuba and Venezuela? ;)

Really? Then why's he holding elections as scheduled and said he's willing to step down as long as the "wanna be" doesn't return? :D

LOL you seem to be clueless about venezuela too.
Dont gonna argue about Cuba, but Venezuela? LOL go read a bit balanced stuff instead of your rightwing stuff (No FDF, not venezuelaanalysis :D )
we will see if elections will be hold and if they are fair.

marksman

29th July 2009, 02:24 PM

Like most things in Central America this is not as black-and-white as most people would like it to be seen.

Honduras' constitution is pretty onerous. However, it too was put into power by popular vote. It does, in fact, prevent people from urging that the Constitution be changed to allow Presidential Re-Election. Why? Because presidential Re-Election was the mechanism by which Honduran presidents have been able to remain Presidents-for-Life (or at least Presidents-until-coup). Banning reelection (and promotion of reelection) was an attempt to prevent demagoguery, in that at the point where someone promotes reelection, they probably aren't powerful enough to repel attempts to remove them from office.

Is it harsh? Yes. Is it an infringement on traditional notions of free speech. Yes.
Is it a valid law in Honduras? Yes.

The President of Honduras openly advocated amending the Constitution to allow for his re-election. He knew it was unconstitutional when he advocated it. He knew the penalty for such advocacy was being barred from holding public office for 10 years. He just thought he had the clout to pull it off without repercussion. He was wrong.

The Supreme Court upheld the law. They removed him from office, as the law required.

I think the ousted President was doing the right thing (fighting for free speech) using the right means (advocating the peaceful amendment of the Constitution) for the wrong reason (he does want to be a demogogue). I think the Honduran Supreme Court did the right thing (uphold the rule of law) using the wrong means (military coup) for the right reason (prevent demogoguery and possibly another dictatorship).

Ironies abound here. A provision intended to prevent military coups has now been used by the military to effect the ouster of a president. A provision intended to prevent the rise of demagogues has now been used by a potential demagogue to increase his revolutionary cache. Upholding the rule of law is seen as tyranny because 20 years ago a people terrified of tyranny passed a law that restricts free speech.

Moreover, I don't think this is a case of there being no good guys. I think this is a case of a lot of people who want to do the right thing being trapped in a system where there is no right thing to do. On the one hand, the Constitution is onerous and infringes on free speech. On the other hand, Honduras has legitimate fears of Presidents abusing their power if they stay too long in the Presidency.

I don't have a good solution here. The choice is to ignore an onerous law, thus leaving a precedent that allows a future President to ignore other laws that people may consider not-so-onerous, or to oust a duly elected President from duly elected office because of a truly heinous law.

I would have preferred the US take no sides in this fight. The US is trying to negotiate a compromise, but history shows that when the US gets its fingers into Latin American politics like this, it is never a clean outcome.

Dancing David

29th July 2009, 03:54 PM

Thanks Marksman.

The US can have clean fingers, if we follow the same principles that apply in the rest of the world. Now as you pointed out the politics are never clean.

Robster, FCD

29th July 2009, 05:03 PM

It sounds as though no matter which side Obama supports, the right gets to say he is siding with a dictator.

corplinx

29th July 2009, 05:08 PM

I wish we had just kept out mouths shut about Honduras. Neither situation was ideal and a US response was not necessary.

marksman

29th July 2009, 06:31 PM

It sounds as though no matter which side Obama supports, the right gets to say he is siding with a dictator.

And people inclined to support Obama would always be able to crow that he did the right thing, no matter what he did.

That's politics.

But I supported Obama when he stayed out of Iran's election. I wish he did the same thing for Honduras.

Dr Adequate

29th July 2009, 09:57 PM

Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/07/obama_is_in_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_acti on_is Has it occurred to you that Prager might be a lying sack of crap?

The facts are these: Zelaya wanted a non-binding referendum in June, to see if in November, concurrent with the presidential elections, people wanted a vote (hereafter referred to as "the fourth ballot") on convening a national constitutional convention, which, by the constitution of Honduras, could then amend some aspects of the constitution by a two-thirds majority vote. Yes, that's right, he wanted people to vote on whether they should vote on whether a national constitutional assembly should vote on changing the constitution, something which they have the constitutional power to do. The man's a monster. Why does he hate democracy so much?

Zelaya did not suggest that the constitutional convention should vote on changing the provisions in the constitution concerning term limits, which is in fact something that they have no power to do, since that article of the constitution is entrenched, and a constitutional convention can't change it.

As the fourth ballot would be concurrent with the 2009 election, and the constitutional convention would be subsequent to it, it follows that even if the constitutional convention could abolish term limits, which it can't, it could not do so in time to let Zelaya run for another term in 2009.

So much for Prager's "facts". As for his spin ...

Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Cuba’s Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras.

Actually, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: every country in the world has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new regime. The only government in the entire world that thinks that the new government of Honduras is legitimate is ... the new government of Honduras.

Dr Adequate

29th July 2009, 10:04 PM

I wish we had just kept out mouths shut about Honduras. Neither situation was ideal and a US response was not necessary.But I supported Obama when he stayed out of Iran's election. I wish he did the same thing for Honduras. There's a limit to the power the US has to sit on the fence. Either we do, or we don't, acknowledge the new regime. If we don't, we annoy the people now in power in Honduras. If we do, we infuriate everyone else, especially all the other Latin American countries.

marksman

30th July 2009, 05:32 AM

There's a limit to the power the US has to sit on the fence. Either we do, or we don't, acknowledge the new regime. If we don't, we annoy the people now in power in Honduras. If we do, we infuriate everyone else, especially all the other Latin American countries.

There was no need to make that decision now. The visas that we refused to recognize were visas of officials who were in power during the ousted president's tenure. There was no need to revoke them actively. Status quo means no recognition either way.

There may be a limit to how long the US can sit on the fence, but we hadn't reached that limit yet. The US wasn't drawn into this dispute -- we jumped in and took a side. It was short-sighted. Right now, the Latin American sympathies are for the exiled President because he has spun himself to look like a defender of democracy. If he returns with US support and becomes the demagogue some fear he will, he'll look like yet another CIA-installed American puppet. If he returns with US support, doesn't become a dictator, but the Honduran constitution is shredded in the process, the US will look like they destabilized yet another Latin American government to support their own parochial interests.

We chose to court the flavor-of-the-week at the expense of long-term foreign policy planning for the region. I am disappointed.

Dancing David

30th July 2009, 05:53 AM

And people inclined to support Obama would always be able to crow that he did the right thing, no matter what he did.

That's politics.

But I supported Obama when he stayed out of Iran's election. I wish he did the same thing for Honduras.

Nope some of us don't like certain things and don't crow about them, the perils of representative democracy.

Dancing David

30th July 2009, 05:54 AM

Long term policy?

geni

30th July 2009, 06:34 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1

Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/07/obama_is_in_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_acti on_is

Your lack of respect for due process is noted. Cuba's that way. I'm sure you will be very happy there.

Dr Adequate

30th July 2009, 04:37 PM

There was no need to make that decision now. The visas that we refused to recognize were visas of officials who were in power during the ousted president's tenure. There was no need to revoke them actively. Status quo means no recognition either way. How do we not recognize the regime while recognizing their diplomats?

There may be a limit to how long the US can sit on the fence, but we hadn't reached that limit yet. The US wasn't drawn into this dispute -- we jumped in and took a side. As I said, we can recognize them or not.

And what should we have done in the UN? Been the one hold-out against the vote condemning the coup?

It was short-sighted. Right now, the Latin American sympathies are for the exiled President because he has spun himself to look like a defender of democracy. If he returns with US support and becomes the demagogue some fear he will, he'll look like yet another CIA-installed American puppet. If he returns with US support, doesn't become a dictator, but the Honduran constitution is shredded in the process, the US will look like they destabilized yet another Latin American government to support their own parochial interests. Well, if he makes himself a dictator, I guess we can condemn that too. Or can we? What if his opponent then goes on to become an even worse dictator who terrorizes the world with a death-ray?

But the trouble is that silence too is not an option --- if everyone else in the world condemns this coup, then silence looks like tacit support. How should the US have voted in the UN? Should we have been the one hold-out against condemnation? What would the US have looked like then?

We chose to court the flavor-of-the-week at the expense of long-term foreign policy planning for the region. I am disappointed. I think in the long term the best interests of the US will be best served by impartially condemning every military coup against an elected President. How would it help foreign policy planning for the region if we simultaneously gave the finger to every government in said region? What, besides supporting democracy, is the long term plan? Is there going to be a coup that we're going to want to support one of these days?

corplinx

30th July 2009, 05:35 PM

marksman

30th July 2009, 06:01 PM

How do we not recognize the regime while recognizing their diplomats?
Generally, you don't review everyone's visas after every regime change, coup-led or not. The US didn't refuse to grant new visas; it took existing visas and revoked them. Diplomatically, that's a punishment or condemnation, not an act of derecognition.

And what should we have done in the UN? Been the one hold-out against the vote condemning the coup?
What vote? You mean the general acclamation (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZr3N2.b9BXA) that was sponsored by the United States?

Well, if he makes himself a dictator, I guess we can condemn that too.
We can condemn it. Of course, the condemnation rings pretty hollow if we were the ones who reinstated him into power, doesn't it?

What if his opponent then goes on to become an even worse dictator who terrorizes the world with a death-ray?
What about it? If we don't take side, we didn't take sides. You seem to be taking a bizarre Bushian ("You're with us or against") us stance. Come on, Dr. Adequate, you used to have more nuance than this.

How should the US have voted in the UN? Should we have been the one hold-out against condemnation? What would the US have looked like then?
Maybe we shouldn't have been the ones pushing for condemnations in the first place but instead counseled restrain and a wait-and-see attitude, as we did with Iran.

I think in the long term the best interests of the US will be best served by impartially condemning every military coup against an elected President.
I think the long-term interests of the United States are best served by examining each instance on its own merits and not making mob-mentality knee-jerk decisions. But there I go again being nuanced.

What, besides supporting democracy, is the long term plan? Is there going to be a coup that we're going to want to support one of these days?
Why should there be? The problem is that what's been called a coup is also an enforcement of the Honduran Constitution, which the President violated. It's a catch-22, Dr. A. Do you think maybe America might want to stand behind upholding the rule of law? If Richard Nixon were convicted in an impeachment, and the U.S. Military were ordered to remove him from the White House, should that have been condemned as a coup? Or should it have been applauded as the constitution being properly enforced?

The Honduran Supreme Court barred Zelaya from holding public office, in accord with the draconian terms of the Constitution that Zelaya took an oath to uphold. What was the Supreme Court supposed to do? Ignore the Constitution? Apparently, yes.

BeAChooser

30th July 2009, 07:32 PM

The Honduran Supreme Court barred Zelaya from holding public office, in accord with the draconian terms of the Constitution that Zelaya took an oath to uphold. What was the Supreme Court supposed to do? Ignore the Constitution? Apparently, yes.

Well that would be consistent with the way liberals view our own Constitution. ;)

wackyvorlon

30th July 2009, 07:38 PM

Hmm, refresh my memory. How did Saddam Hussein get power again?

Shalamar

30th July 2009, 07:44 PM

Well that would be consistent with the way liberals view our own Constitution. ;)

Evidence? Or did you mean to write 'conservatives' instead of 'liberals'?

Dr Adequate

30th July 2009, 07:50 PM

Generally, you don't review everyone's visas after every regime change, coup-led or not. The US didn't refuse to grant new visas; it took existing visas and revoked them. Diplomatically, that's a punishment or condemnation, not an act of derecognition. That seems to be a distinction without a difference.

What vote? You mean the general acclamation (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZr3N2.b9BXA) that was sponsored by the United States? Apparently.

We can condemn it. Of course, the condemnation rings pretty hollow if we were the ones who reinstated him into power, doesn't it? No. If we favor him when he's a democratically elected President but oppose him if he tries to make himself a dictator, that would show admirable consistency of principle.

On the other hand, if we stayed silent when he was removed by a coup, but complained if he was subsequently installed by a coup, that might suggest that our later condemnation was motivated by something other than a love of freedom and democracy.

What about it? If we don't take side, we didn't take sides. You seem to be taking a bizarre Bushian ("You're with us or against") us stance. Come on, Dr. Adequate, you used to have more nuance than this. I think that that's how it would have been perceived by all the Latin American countries queing up to denounce the coup.

I think the long-term interests of the United States are best served by examining each instance on its own merits and not making mob-mentality knee-jerk decisions. But there I go again being nuanced. But when we examine each case on its merits, should there not be some sort of guiding principle by which we do so? Such as being for democracy and against military coups.

Why should there be? The problem is that what's been called a coup is also an enforcement of the Honduran Constitution, which the President violated. It's a catch-22, Dr. A. Do you think maybe America might want to stand behind upholding the rule of law? If Richard Nixon were convicted in an impeachment, and the U.S. Military were ordered to remove him from the White House, should that have been condemned as a coup? Or should it have been applauded as the constitution being properly enforced? The former. We have laws and the rule of law. Whatever Tricky Dicky did, there were laws to deal with it, none of which involved the Army kidnapping him and flying him to Costa Rica.

The Honduran Supreme Court barred Zelaya from holding public office, in accord with the draconian terms of the Constitution that Zelaya took an oath to uphold. What was the Supreme Court supposed to do? Ignore the Constitution? Apparently, yes. But unless the Honduran Constitution is much much stranger than ours, this provided no legal warrant for the actions of the Army.

The question Zelaya wanted asked at the July plebiscite was:

Are you in accord that in the general elections of November 2009 there be included a fourth ballot in which the people decide whether to convoke a National Constitutional Assembly?

Even if it was unconstitutional to ask if people wanted a vote on convoking such an assembly, which according to the Honduran Constitution, is how you're meant to amend the Honduran Constitution, I still don't see how this justifies the Army putting Zelaya on the next flight to Costa Rica.

The Honduran Army's top lawyer has admitted as much (http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html).

geni

30th July 2009, 07:59 PM

I've been to Honduras before. My guess is that if we say nothing, Chavez can't claim it is part of our pattern of interference. Plantains still get bought and sold and nothing much changes.

Of course he can. Failure to condem what was legaly a militry coup (which is what happens when you fail at due process I still think someone paniced).

Could be wrong. It is easy for me in my arm chair to second guess the leader of the free world and his panels of advisors. The condemnation felt rushed though. The coddling of the ousted leader to me however was just over the top. It is one thing to denounce military coups which sounds good on the surface even if we like the outcome it produced. Hosting the ousted Chavez clone in Washington however felt like the sort of interference that they supposedly hate us for.

The guy isn't a Chavez clone. He's never tried to overthrow his own country's goverment through militry force.

Look diplomacy asside I think it's safe to assume that obama and co would like to pick both sides up and bang them together a few times before dumping them on a desert island and telling them to evolve into a more intelligent species. However that isn't practical.

So diplomacy. Saying nothing will be read as supporting the coup. South America is traditionaly the US's stamping ground so saying nothing over an event of this size will be read as tacit support.

Supporting the coup isn't an option since it means that every other militry in the world thats thinking about trying it (and there are a few not long since madagascar and mauritania had their coups) will read that as the US supporting it if they they can constitionaly halfway justify it.

Alturnatively there is the oppose option. Now that still has it's problems. Zelaya isn't the kind of leader the US wants to encourage. But it has the advantage of allowing for a clear "no coups against democraticly elected people" stand. It also weakens the chavez block in that area since the US becomes less of a bogeyman. If the US is prepared to oppose your overthrow even if you are popularist (although Zelaya wasn't very good at that bit) left then perhaps they are not so bad after all.

The other factor is that Zelaya is politicaly finished anyway. He's popular support is limited, his party has given up on him and the Democratic Unification Party have been neutralised. There is no risk of him ending up in power whatever the US does short of an invasion. Thus pragmaticaly the coup isa far greater threat to democracy at the moment than Zelaya.

BeAChooser

30th July 2009, 09:09 PM

The guy isn't a Chavez clone. He's never tried to overthrow his own country's goverment through militry force.

No?

Zelaya personally led an armed mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being stored.

30th July 2009, 10:51 PM

No?

Zelaya personally led an armed mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being stored.

and also the Honduras Government was there and he tried to overtrow them?

funk de fino

31st July 2009, 01:00 AM

geni

31st July 2009, 07:55 AM

No?

Zelaya personally led an armed mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being stored.

Unarmed. Zelaya is not completely stupid. And since Zelaya was the legitimate head of the goverment at that point it's a bit hard to see how that counts as an attempt to overthrow the goverment.

ZirconBlue

31st July 2009, 11:55 AM

marksman

31st July 2009, 02:19 PM

That seems to be a distinction without a difference.
In fact, it is a significant distinction and difference.

On the other hand, if we stayed silent when he was removed by a coup
The very article you linked to shows that the US still isn't willing to classify what happened to Zelaya a coup as he was replaced by the person designated by the Constitution to replace an ousted President. So your use of the word "coup" to describe what happened is inaccurate and inflammatory.

I think that that's how it would have been perceived by all the Latin American countries queing up to denounce the coup.
I don't think perceptions should overrule the law. I'm pretty sure that skeptics are supposed to be partial to evidence over hysteria.

should there not be some sort of guiding principle by which we do so? Such as being for democracy and against military coups.
Rule of law. There was no, as far as the US is concerned, coup.

But unless the Honduran Constitution is much much stranger than ours, this provided no legal warrant for the actions of the Army.
According to the article you linked, the army was supposed to have arrested him and thrown him into a Honduran prison. If he had been imprisoned, would you have said that wasn't a coup, because it followed the law?

Even if it was unconstitutional to ask if people wanted a vote on convoking such an assembly, which according to the Honduran Constitution, is how you're meant to amend the Honduran Constitution, I still don't see how this justifies the Army putting Zelaya on the next flight to Costa Rica.
No, they were supposed to thow him into prison. I'm not sure how the fact that Zelaya still has his liberty makes things worse for the Honduran authorities.

The Honduran Army's top lawyer has admitted as much (http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html).
Read, the article, Dr.A. The lawyer admitted they were supposed to have thrown him into prison, not exiled him. He did not say that Zelaya's removal from power was inappropriate. That was, in fact, absolutely Constitutional. The army erred badly when they exiled him. That was without authority. But I somehow think that Zelaya sitting in a Honduran jail cell awaiting trial, rather than hanging out in Nicaragua, would have improved the region's reaction to events there. Do you?

They don't have police in Honduras?
Under the Honduran Constitution, federal crimes are handled by the military. The Tegucigalpa police had no authority to enforce a federal crime. In the US, federal crimes would be handled by some federal agency as well. If Tricky Dick were to have been arrested for criminal violations of federal law, it would not be the District of Columbia police who would have arrested him.

Here is a neutral article from the Christian Science Monitor on the legal status of this alleged coup.
-Link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0721/p09s02-wogn.html)

ZirconBlue

31st July 2009, 06:42 PM

Under the Honduran Constitution, federal crimes are handled by the military. The Tegucigalpa police had no authority to enforce a federal crime.

I haven't read up on this too extensively, yet. If what you say is true, then, I have to say that the Honduran Constitution is. . . dumb.

That said, it should still be enforced; hopefully it will eventually be amended to be less. . . stupid.

In the US, federal crimes would be handled by some federal agency as well.

"As well"? Hold on, now. Let's not pretend that a Federal law enforcement agency is the same as the military. If Honduras doesn't have a federal law enforcement agency with authority to enforce federal court decisions, they should look at establishing one.

This is not a question of "our way vs their way". The mission and guiding principles of a military organization are not (and should not be) the same as those of a law enforcement agency. Putting the military in charge of law enforcement activities is a recipe for disaster.

If Tricky Dick were to have been arrested for criminal violations of federal law, it would not be the District of Columbia police who would have arrested him.

I assume it would be the FBI, or other law enforcement agency, not the US military.

anduin

31st July 2009, 09:37 PM

I am in Costa Rica at the moment (and I'm Costa Rican) so I can help to elucidate a bit on the politics involved here. This was a military coup, there cannot be any doubt about it. If all of the reports are accurate, it seems almost certain that Zelaya broke the law, but if that was the case the solution was to arrest him, not to take him out of his house in his pyjamas, load him on a plane and send him to Costa Rica. Could someone please point out the article in the Honduran constitution where this is an acceptable procedure for deposing a standing elected president?

Every single country in Latin America has strongly condemned the coup, this includes governments that cover all of the political spectrum, from Cuba to the left to Colombia to the right, and includes governments who completely disagree with each other in almost every other single issue. The reason for such unprecedented agreement is easy to understand if you remember Latin American political history; military coups used to be common in the region, and many countries are struggling with nascent democracies. No leader will condone a military coup even if it is performed against someone you hate (perhaps with the exception of Venezuela, which is a sui generis case). Latin Americans are truly sick and tired of military coups, and only Costa Rica is immune to them, as we have no army.

The U.S. was right in condemning the coup as American recognition still carries a lot of weight in the region, particularly with rightist elites in Honduras. It was also a smart move, as it deflated Chavez's claims of American interventionism. The U.S. has fully supported the mediating efforts performed by Oscar Arias, the Costa Rican president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who carries a lot of respect in the region. Chavez hates Arias because he sees him as a rival for Latin American influence, so a successful mediation process would be a pie in Chavez's smug face.

Do not be mistaken, most of us in Costa Rica hate Chavez, Ortega and Zelaya, but the stupid Honduran military has placed us in a situation in which we have to support Zelaya, because the alternative is not a viable option at all. An agreed solution would be the only way to avoid an escalation that could include civil war at best, and armed Nicaraguan and Venezuelan intervention at worst.

So BAC, your attempt to play silly American partisan anti-Obama games is laughable at best, and shows the ignorant manicheist view of the world typical of American conservatives.

BeAChooser

31st July 2009, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Zelaya personally led an armed mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being stored.

Unarmed. Zelaya is not completely stupid. And since Zelaya was the legitimate head of the goverment at that point it's a bit hard to see how that counts as an attempt to overthrow the goverment.

Well then Senator Jim DeMint must have been wrong. And it counts as an attempt to overthrow the government because what he was doing was in clear violation of the Honduran Constitution.

BeAChooser

31st July 2009, 10:38 PM

This was a military coup, there cannot be any doubt about it.

Quoting Prager:

When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?

Dr Adequate

1st August 2009, 02:20 AM

Dr Adequate

1st August 2009, 02:28 AM

In fact, it is a significant distinction and difference. Do go on.

The very article you linked to shows that the US still isn't willing to classify what happened to Zelaya a coup as he was replaced by the person designated by the Constitution to replace an ousted President. So your use of the word "coup" to describe what happened is inaccurate and inflammatory. Or perhaps they are exercising the very tact that you urge on them.

As for "inaccurate", if it quacks like a coup ... and as for "inflammatory", whom am I inflaming? If my posts are causing bloodshed on the streets of Honduras, I promise to stop.

I don't think perceptions should overrule the law. [...] The army erred badly when they exiled him. That was without authority. But I somehow think that Zelaya sitting in a Honduran jail cell awaiting trial, rather than hanging out in Nicaragua, would have improved the region's reaction to events there. Comment seems unnecessary.

SezMe

1st August 2009, 03:57 AM

BAC, when you quote Prager to make your point, it is like a leftie quoting, say, Nader, to make his point. Would you find the quote persuasive?

Secondly, I have to ask why you include so many :Ds when, apparently, trying to make a serious (from your perspective) point.

Dr Adequate

1st August 2009, 05:07 AM

And it counts as an attempt to overthrow the government because what he was doing was in clear violation of the Honduran Constitution. So if the US Supreme Court ever ruled that something that the Bush administration did was unconstitutional, would Bush have been attempting to overthrow the government?

I'm fairly sure that that's not how it works. I'm pretty sure that the consequence of that would have been that the administration would have had to stop doing the unconstitutional thing that it was doing, rather than that Bush would have been tried for treason.

leftysergeant

1st August 2009, 07:24 AM

Quoting Prager:

Why are you quoting an idiot? Prager has no freaking CLUE what he is talking aboput. People are getting killed. Go away until you can bring actual facts to the discussion. Prager has as much common sense as a birfer.

anduin

1st August 2009, 08:49 AM

Quoting Prager:When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?

This is a unique military coup, but it is a coup nonetheless, Zelaya was removed by the military and not by the judiciary.

By the way, are you going to answer to any of the other points? Are you aware that rightist governments in Latin America have condemned the coup?

BeAChooser

1st August 2009, 10:31 AM

Zelaya was removed by the military and not by the judiciary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html

In recent days, the rhetoric from allies of former President Manuel Zelaya has also dominated media reporting in the U.S. The worst distortion is the repetition of the false statement that Mr. Zelaya was removed from office by the military and for being a “reformer.” The truth is that he was removed by a democratically elected civilian government because the independent judicial and legislative branches of our government found that he had violated our laws and constitution.

Let’s review some fundamental facts that cannot be disputed:

- The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

- Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.

- The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

- Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

- The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

- Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

- A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

- I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.

Deal with those facts. :D

geni

1st August 2009, 10:49 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html

Deal with those facts. :D

Your faith in the WJS is touching but misplaced.

The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

1) Arrests don't result in you removeing a person from the country. There is a mechanism under the honduran constition that would have allowed for that but it wasn't used.

2)The constition makes no menetion of the militry performing such a role.

The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

What it didn't include was the memebers of congress arrested by the militry.

Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

Congress on the other hand thought otherwise. Or have you forgetten the forged resignation letter?

A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots

Zelaya isn't a complete idiot. He wasn't going to try and use force against a militry base and there are no worthwhile reports that he did.

that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

If you drive a car odds are you are useing oil supplied by Chávez.

Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

Citation needed.

Drysdale

1st August 2009, 11:08 AM

Why are you quoting an idiot? Prager has no freaking CLUE what he is talking aboput. People are getting killed. Go away until you can bring actual facts to the discussion. Prager has as much common sense as a birfer.

Wait a minute,in the Iraq thread you stated this...

Who made us the arbiter of what nations can so what?

It was not in the jurisdiction of the United States to do squat there.

But it's in our jurisdiction in Honduras? Why?

SezMe

1st August 2009, 11:52 AM

Drysdale, lefty is talking about the cluelessness of Prager and you respond by questioning his assertions regarding USA jurisdiction in Honduras? I don't get it. Please explain.

leftysergeant

1st August 2009, 04:04 PM

But it's in our jurisdiction in Honduras? Why?

None. Same as in Iraq.

Wecan say all we want to about the situation, we can cut off tradewith them.

We don't have jurisdiction to send in any kind of muscle, be it CIA wet workers or the USMC.

(Least of all the USMC. That's what got us into so much deep doo-doo in Central America in the first place.)

anduin

1st August 2009, 07:43 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html
Deal with those facts. :D

Nothing in the article addresses the inconvenient fact that he was forcefully removed by the military when the appropriate action was an arrest by the police. As I keep saying, all of us in Latin America who do not like Zelaya were left having to support him because he was removed by a military coup, everyone agrees with this fact except a few cuckoos from the far right. If he had been arrested and then removed according to the constitution, we would not be having this discussion at all. By exiling him the military shot itself in the foot, as there is not a single country that has recognised the coup.

The best solution will be a negotiated agreement that would bring him back to serve his last months, with the proviso that he will not attempt to change the constitution. This way no blood will be shed, and Chavez will be left looking like the idiot that he is, as he has been advocating a civil war.

SezMe

1st August 2009, 08:09 PM

Deal with those facts. :D
Did you notice what it says at the top of that page: "top stories in Opinion"
Deal with that fact. :D

BeAChooser

1st August 2009, 09:46 PM

Arrests don't result in you removeing a person from the country. There is a mechanism under the honduran constition that would have allowed for that but it wasn't used.

Can you offer a citation to back that claim up? In the meantime ...

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/honduras-removal-president-legal-constitution-has-vaccine

On January 11th of the year 1982, a constituent assembly gave birth to a beautiful Constitution that was vaccinated against the diseases that historically have affected the region. The Honduran Constitution does not allow the reform of articles related to the form of government, the territory, the presidential term, the prohibition on presidential reelection and who can't become President in the subsequent term. It goes further and states that the alternation of the Presidency is mandatory and its violators incur in high treason.

Our constitution clearly lays out an impeachment process that must be followed to trial and convict a President that has violated the Law. But our Constitution also includes a single exception to this rule in article 239, which states that the President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or simply proposes its reform, will immediately cease in the exercise of office. In other words, the simple act of proposing the reform removes ispo jure (by operation of law) a President from office.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/saving_democracy_in_the_hondur.html

Interestingly, the Honduran Congress (including members of Zelaya's own Liberal Party) gave the military a standing ovation, and the Honduran Supreme Court said the military was acting on their orders. In a statement released on Honduran radio, the court said that the military "acted to defend the rule of law."

... snip ...

If this is a coup, then it is unlike almost any other in history. The former president is alive and safe, albeit out of power and in another country. An acting president has been named per the constitution, and presidential elections will still be held this fall. Also, the differing political parties have come together to support the removal of the former president. As it stands, the only government leaders labeling this a coup are the ex-president himself and leaders of other countries, especially those with personal socialist or Marxist leanings.

And, frankly, I don't think you'll be able to back up what you claim. Here's why ...

http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=16111

Looking to the Honduran Constitution

Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (Honduras: Constitución de 1982) does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” (article 42, translation mine):

ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:

5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,

I think they clearly had the right to arrest and expel someone who was no longer a citizen according to the Supreme Court. :D

Quote:
The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

What it didn't include was the memebers of congress arrested by the militry.

Again, can you offer a citation to back up what you claim? Please, prove to us that members of the Honduran Congress were arrested before the vote by Congress approving Zelaya's expulsion. :D

Or have you forgetten the forged resignation letter?

And again, what's your source for this claim? The only place I find this claim is on pro-Venezuelan, far left, and socialist party websites. CNN hasn't concluded it's forged. The Washington Post hasn't concluded it's forged. The Los Angeles Times hasn't concluded it's forged. CBSNews hasn't concluded it's forged. I can't even find a single source that indicates Obama concluded it's forged. Can you? :D

Zelaya isn't a complete idiot. He wasn't going to try and use force against a militry base and there are no worthwhile reports that he did.

Then how did he get the ballots?

Quote:
that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

If you drive a car odds are you are useing oil supplied by Chávez.

That's not quite the same thing ... and you know it. But then you are starting to get desperate, so you'll grab at any excuse. :D

Quote:
Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

Citation needed.

Sure.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/22/zelaya-accused-of-cash-withdrawal/

Honduran officials are investigating allegations that President Manuel Zelaya and his chief of staff stole millions of dollars from the central bank before the military ousted Mr. Zelaya last month, according to a senior Honduran official, government documents and other evidence.

A security video from the Central Bank of Honduras made available to The Washington Times shows officials entering the bank June 24 and withdrawing large amounts of Honduran currency. The money was driven to the office of Mr. Zelaya's chief of staff, Enrique Flores Lanza, according to depositions by three witnesses to Honduran prosecutors.

Government documents and testimony by the three say that about $2.2 million was taken.

The video, originally aired in Honduras, has not been previously reported by U.S. media.

An additional $550,000 was withdrawn hours later from the central bank by order of Mr. Lanza, according to bank documents obtained by The Times.

See how easy it was for me to prove that with a mainstream source?

Now it's your turn to back up what you claimed. Bet you don't. :D

BeAChooser

1st August 2009, 09:51 PM

Nothing in the article addresses the inconvenient fact that he was forcefully removed by the military when the appropriate action was an arrest by the police.

See post #62. TRY and deal with the facts. :D

If he had been arrested and then removed according to the constitution

And could you cite the provisions in the Honduran Constitution which would apply? Remember ... the Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zelaya was no longer a citizen because that's exactly what the Constitution states (see post #62). :D

The best solution will be a negotiated agreement that would bring him back to serve his last months

I'm sure a leftist would believe that. :rolleyes:

geni

1st August 2009, 10:11 PM

Can you offer a citation to back that claim up? In the meantime ...

I think they clearly had the right to arrest and expel someone who was no longer a citizen according to the Supreme Court. :D

Sigh try reading the consitition. The mechanism to remove citizenship was not used. Apart from anything

Again, can you offer a citation to back up what you claim? Please, prove to us that members of the Honduran Congress were arrested before the vote by Congress approving Zelaya's expulsion. :D

http://www.amerika21.de/nachrichten/inhalt/2009/jun/verfolgung-12243534-honduras/

Hardly supriseing. The Democratic Unification Party are the local hard left.

And again, what's your source for this claim? The only place I find this claim is on pro-Venezuelan, far left, and socialist party websites. CNN hasn't concluded it's forged. The Washington Post hasn't concluded it's forged. The Los Angeles Times hasn't concluded it's forged. CBSNews hasn't concluded it's forged. I can't even find a single source that indicates Obama concluded it's forged. Can you? :D

No one thinks it is real. Even the congress gave up on that lie and tried to use the consititional argument.

Then how did he get the ballots?

You are probably not aware of this but most militry forces are not made up of complete psychopaths. When large numbers of unarmed civilians walk towards them there is a tendancy towards bafflement. If you knew anything about war you would know that since it is how Morocco grabbed Western Sahara. It's a neat tactic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/22/zelaya-accused-of-cash-withdrawal/

See how easy it was for me to prove that with a mainstream source?

A paper not owned by the hard right Sun Myung Moon would be a better choice if you are trying to claim mainstream.

geni

1st August 2009, 10:17 PM

See post #62. TRY and deal with the facts. :D

And could you cite the provisions in the Honduran Constitution which would apply? Remember ... the Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zelaya was no longer a citizen because that's exactly what the Constitution states (see post #62). :D

You've never read article 42 have you. There is a second rather relivant bit:

4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.

Wasn't followed.

BeAChooser

1st August 2009, 11:00 PM

Sigh try reading the consitition.

Notice folks, that unlike me, geni appears unable to offer a single citation to back up what he/she claims the Honduran Constitution says. As predicted. :D

Quote:
Again, can you offer a citation to back up what you claim? Please, prove to us that members of the Honduran Congress were arrested before the vote by Congress approving Zelaya's expulsion.

http://www.amerika21.de/nachrichten/...3534-honduras/

Could you at least offer us a translation? :D

And I suspect it's tied to far leftists and Venezuala. Why?

http://www.america21.de/a21/a21_es

El portal amerika21.de es un hijo de la Revolución Bolivariana: por un lado su origen está estrechamente vinculado con el avance de la transformación social y política que vive Venezuela desde 1999.

:D

No one thinks it is real. Even the congress gave up on that lie and tried to use the consititional argument.

Again, notice folks that geni is unable to offer even one mainstream source that concludes the resignation letter was forged or even that Obama thinks it is forged. As predicted. :D

Quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...sh-withdrawal/

See how easy it was for me to prove that with a mainstream source?

A paper not owned by the hard right Sun Myung Moon would be a better choice if you are trying to claim mainstream.

ROTFLOL! A complaint from someone who quotes a source that is "a son" of the "Revolución Bolivariana" and apparently thinks that's mainstream. :rolleyes:

I tell you what, geni ... let's just click the purported video of the bank withdrawal that is contained on the Washington Times link. Sure looks a little like Zelaya's chief of staff (http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/enrique-flores-lanza1.jpg ). Sure looks like that could be a bank. Sure looks like he removed a large amount of something from the bank. It's simply amazing the lengths that "Moonies" will go to frame Zelaya. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

1st August 2009, 11:18 PM

You've never read article 42 have you. There is a second rather relivant bit:

4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.

Wasn't followed.

Really? Let's post all of article 42:

http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html

ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:

1. Por prestar servicios en tiempo de guerra a enemigos de Honduras o de sus aliados;

2. Por prestar ayuda en contra del Estado de Honduras, a un extranjero o a un gobierno extranjero en cualquier reclamación diplomática o ante un tribunal internacional;

3. Por desempeñar en el país, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter político;

4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;

5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,

6. Por residir los hondureños naturalizados, por más de dos años consecutivos, en el extranjero sin previa autorización del Poder Ejecutivo.

En los casos a que se refieren los numerales 1) y 2), la declaración de la pérdida de la ciudadanía la hará el Congreso Nacional mediante expediente circunstanciado que se forme al efecto. Para los casos de los numerales 3) y 6), dicha declaración la hará el Poder Ejecutivo mediante acuerdo gubernativo; y para los casos de los incisos 4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.

Now let's post it's translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.honduras.net%2Fhonduras_constit ution2.html

ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:

1. For service in wartime enemies of Honduras or its allies;

2. For assistance with the State of Honduras, an alien or a foreign government in any diplomatic claim or before an international tribunal;

3. To play in the country, without license from the National Congress, employment of foreign nation, or military branch of a political nature;

4. For the freedom to vote, electoral documents adulterate or use fraudulent means to circumvent the popular will;

5. Incite, encourage or support the continuity or re-election of President of the Republic, and

6. Naturalized Honduran resident for more than two consecutive years abroad without prior approval of the Executive.

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file the National Congress through circumstances that formed for the purpose. For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) That the statement made by the Executive Government Agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by courts.

Seems to me that last part (what you quoted) says that in situation 5, citizenship is lost when the courts hand down the sentence and the government agrees.

Now let's look at what happened. The highest court in Honduras handed down a unanimous judgement that Zelaya violated item 5 of Article 42 and the government is certainly in agreement. Bingo.

2nd August 2009, 12:35 AM

notice volks that BAC is using :D's in almost every sentence, he always does that when his source got ripped appart and he realizes that he is wrong but cannot admit it and continues with his debunked lies. :)

geni

2nd August 2009, 01:50 AM

anduin

2nd August 2009, 06:01 AM

And could you cite the provisions in the Honduran Constitution which would apply? Remember ... the Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zelaya was no longer a citizen because that's exactly what the Constitution states (see post #62).

My pleasure:

ARTICULO 68.- Toda persona tiene derecho a que se respete su integridad física, psíquica y moral. (...) Toda persona privada de libertad será tratada con el respeto debido a la dignidad inherente al ser humano.

ARTICULO 69.- La libertad personal es inviolable y sólo con arreglo a las leyes podrá ser restringida o suspendida temporalmente.

ARTICULO 71.- Ninguna persona puede ser detenida ni incomunicada por más de veinticuatro horas, sin ser puesta a la orden de autoridad competente para su juzgamiento. La detención judicial para inquirir no podrá exceder de seis días contados desde el momento en que se produzca la misma.

ARTICULO 81.- Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional. Nadie puede ser obligado a mudar de domicilio o residencia, sino en los casos especiales y con los requisitos que la Ley señala.

ARTICULO 82.- El derecho de defensa es inviolable. Los habitantes de la República tienen libre acceso a los tribunales para ejercitar sus acciones en la forma que señalan las leyes.

ARTICULO 84.- Nadie podrá ser arrestado o detenido sino en virtud de mandato escrito de autoridad competente, expedido con las formalidades legales y por motivo previamente establecido en la Ley.

ARTICULO 85.- Ninguna persona puede ser detenida o presa sino en los lugares que determine la Ley.

ARTICULO 86.- Toda persona sometida a juicio, que se encuentre detenida, tiene derecho a permanecer separada de quienes hubieren sido condenados por sentencia judicial.

ARTICULO 89.- Toda persona es inocente mientras no se haya declarado su responsabilidad por autoridad competente.

ARTICULO 90.- Nadie puede ser juzgado sino por juez o tribunal competente con las formalidades, derechos y garantías que la Ley establece.

ARTICULO 92.- No podrá proveerse auto de prisión sin que proceda plena de haberse cometido un crimen o simple delito que merezca la pena de privación de la libertad, y sin que resulte indicio racional de quien sea su autor.

ARTICULO 93.- Aún con auto de prisión, ninguna persona puede ser llevada a la cárcel ni detenida en ella, si otorga caución suficiente de conformidad con la Ley.

ARTICULO 94.- A nadie se impondrá pena alguna sin haber sido oído y vencido en juicio, y sin que le haya sido impuesta por resolución ejecutoriada de Juez o autoridad competente. En los casos de apremio y otras medidas de igual naturaleza en materia civil o laboral, así como en los de multa o arresto en materia de policía, siempre deberá ser oído el afectado.

You have a twisted idea of the law. The Constitutional Court is not a criminal court, Zelaya was entitled to due process of law instead of the summary procedure he was subjected to. Article 94 is particularly important. Nobody can receive any sort of punishment, be it criminal, civil or labour dispute, without a FAIR HEARING. Unilateral action taken by the military does not count.

So stop playing at the amateur lawyer.

I'm sure a leftist would believe that.

No, this is the solution offered by the Acuerdo de San Jose, redacted and sponsored by Oscar Arias, hardly a leftist.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/22/honduras.talks/

anduin

2nd August 2009, 06:13 AM

Seems to me that last part (what you quoted) says that in situation 5, citizenship is lost when the courts hand down the sentence and the government agrees.

Now let's look at what happened. The highest court in Honduras handed down a unanimous judgement that Zelaya violated item 5 of Article 42 and the government is certainly in agreement. Bingo.

Seems to you how? Your only understanding of Honduran Constitutional procedure is reading a couple of mistranslated blogs. This is the procedure as established by the constitution:

A person is formally accused, he has all of the protections awarded by law, included presumption of innocence, right to representation and due process of law. The Honduran constitution clearly states that nobody can be deprived of any right by unilateral court action. Zelaya had a right to hear the accusation and make proper representation. If the complaint continued, it was not the Constitutional Court the one which had jurisdiction in this case, only a criminal court could hand in the ruling.

So it is a military coup because none of the formalities established by the Honduran constitution, which you keep citing, were fulfilled.

Deal with that (insert smiley here).

geni

2nd August 2009, 06:26 AM

Could you at least offer us a translation? :D

And I suspect it's tied to far leftists and Venezuala. Why?

http://www.america21.de/a21/a21_es

Because the Democratic Unification Party are the hondoran hard left. No one else cares what happens to them.

Again, notice folks that geni is unable to offer even one mainstream source that concludes the resignation letter was forged or even that Obama thinks it is forged. As predicted. :D

Well saying it outright would appear ah non neutral. But look at the language in this AP article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jp4xSjMSgOuL1YcK6iuCbjaBA3uAD99LOJK80

ROTFLOL! A complaint from someone who quotes a source that is "a son" of the "Revolución Bolivariana" and apparently thinks that's mainstream. :rolleyes:

I tell you what, geni ... let's just click the purported video of the bank withdrawal that is contained on the Washington Times link. Sure looks a little like Zelaya's chief of staff (http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/enrique-flores-lanza1.jpg ). Sure looks like that could be a bank. Sure looks like he removed a large amount of something from the bank. It's simply amazing the lengths that "Moonies" will go to frame Zelaya. :rolleyes:

Nah. That's the new regime's work. Washington Times just isn't going to bother questioning it. We don't know when the video dates from. We don't actualy know whats in the bag. If there is money in the bag we don't know who it belongs to (remeber Chavez has been involved and he's not going to have a problem donateing a couple of million to Zelaya).

BeAChooser

2nd August 2009, 09:09 AM

Once again you fail at due process. No such sentence was handed down.

Unlike you, I can cite numerous mainstream sources that state the Supreme Court unanimously declared Zelaya violated the constitution.

The counts have never claimed they did (understandable such an action would technicaly be illegal under international law but thats details).

Especially when you probably can't back up what you claim international law says either. :D

BeAChooser

2nd August 2009, 09:39 AM

ARTICULO 68.- Toda persona tiene derecho a que se respete su integridad física, psíquica y moral. (...) Toda persona privada de libertad será tratada con el respeto debido a la dignidad inherente al ser humano.

This seems to translate to "Every private person of liberty will be treated with the respect due to the dignity inherent in the human being." I fail to see that Zelaya wasn't treated in that manner. He was merely removed from a country where the Constitution says he's no longer a citizen. :D

ARTICULO 82.- El derecho de defensa es inviolable. Los habitantes de la República tienen libre acceso a los tribunales para ejercitar sus acciones en la forma que señalan las leyes.

This seems to translate to "The right of defense is inviolable." Prove that Zelaya didn't have an attorney. :D

ARTICULO 90.- Nadie puede ser juzgado sino por juez o tribunal competente con las formalidades, derechos y garantías que la Ley establece.

This seems to translate to "Nobody can be judged but by judge or competent court with the formalities, right and guarantees that the Law establishes. " Well, the highest court in Honduras did the judging and what formalities, rights and guarantees was Zelaya not afforded?

En los casos de apremio y otras medidas de igual naturaleza en materia civil o laboral, así como en los de multa o arresto en materia de policía, siempre deberá ser oído el afectado.

This seems to translate to "In the cases of pressure and other measures of equal nature in civil or labor matter, as well as in those of fine or arrest in matter of police, should always be heard the affected." I think we've heard too much from Zelaya, if you want my opinion. :D

You have a twisted idea of the law.

No, the Constitution states very clearly that if you do what Zelaya did you are no longer a Honduran citizen. And countries have every right to throw non-citizens out of the country.

The Constitutional Court is not a criminal court, Zelaya was entitled to due process of law instead of the summary procedure he was subjected to.

Not if he's not a citizen.

No, this is the solution offered by the Acuerdo de San Jose, redacted and sponsored by Oscar Arias, hardly a leftist.

Well leftists aren't the only ones that are sometimes a little clueless. And maybe Arias is just acting out of personal interest. I notice that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Óscar_Arias ) "the Costa Rican constitution had been amended to include a clause which forbade former presidents seeking reelection. Arias challenged this in Sala IV, the Constitutional Court, which initially rejected his application. That ruling came down in September 2000. Arias then used his considerable political connections to alter the Court´s composition and, with a majority of members favorable to his cause, succeeded at the second attempt -- April 2003 -- to have the constitution changed. Arias - to the surprise of no one - announced in 2004 that he intended to run again for president in the February 2006 general elections." Maybe he just feels the need to defend someone else who was trying to pull the same stunt. :D

By the way, it's seems a little hypocritical that Obama and all the others who are upset about what happened in Honduras aren't equally concern about what happened in Iran recently. The Iranian people had an election stolen from them and many where killed and tortured in large numbers for protesting that action. But where's the condemnation?

BeAChooser

2nd August 2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:
Again, notice folks that geni is unable to offer even one mainstream source that concludes the resignation letter was forged or even that Obama thinks it is forged. As predicted.

Well saying it outright would appear ah non neutral.

Oh please. Who has tried to be "neutral" in this? :rolleyes:

But look at the language in this AP article

So what? It says it's a "curious letter" But it doesn't say the letter been proven a forgery. It says "There has been little mention of the letter by the interim government since." But so what? In the US, the Clinton administration claimed to have *discovered* a torn up suicide note in Vince Foster's briefcase (even though it had been checked by Park Police earlier). They claimed it proved Foster committed suicide. But that note has clearly been shown to have been forged (I've talked about that on this forum a number of times). And guess what? The Clinton administration and US government has made little mention of the letter since. Why aren't you equally upset about that injustice, geni? Maybe the US government acted illegally in murdering Foster? You have to admit that a forged suicide note that was discovered in a brief case that was in the hands of the Clinton administration at the time is mighty incriminating. :D

Washington Times just isn't going to bother questioning it. We don't know when the video dates from. We don't actualy know whats in the bag. If there is money in the bag we don't know who it belongs to (remeber Chavez has been involved and he's not going to have a problem donateing a couple of million to Zelaya).

Odd thing though. The other news sources could thoroughly discredit the Honduran government if that video is fake. Why haven't the other news sources even reported the existence of the video? Even to question it's legitimacy like that one AP source you offered seems to do with the resignation letter?

geni

2nd August 2009, 10:16 AM

Unlike you, I can cite numerous mainstream sources that state the Supreme Court unanimously declared Zelaya violated the constitution.

Yup. But not one that sentanced him to have his citizenship removed.

Especially when you probably can't back up what you claim international law says either. :D

1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness article 5.

Basicaly you are not allowed to make a person stateless. Normaly this wouldn't be a problem. You find another country to take the person. Problem is that no one else in south america is going to do anything to help a coup these days and the monroe doctrine means that no one outside that area is going to touch it.

anduin

2nd August 2009, 10:32 AM

This seems to translate to "Every private person of liberty will be treated with the respect due to the dignity inherent in the human being." I fail to see that Zelaya wasn't treated in that manner. He was merely removed from a country where the Constitution says he's no longer a citizen.

The entire point being made, which you seem unwilling and/or unable to understand, is that he was still a citizen until a proper procedure through the courts was undertaken, which is not the case here. Zelaya, just like any citizen in any country with a democratic sytem of government and the rule of law, had the right to have a proper hearing in a court of law. The Constitutiona Court cannot strip him of his citizenship because it does not have jurisdiction to do so, at the most it could refer the case to the proper venue.

This seems to translate to "The right of defense is inviolable." Prove that Zelaya didn't have an attorney.

You really are a troll are you not? In all my many years online this is probably the most idiotic comment ever, and believe me, I have seen pretty bad ones. Having a lawyer is not the same as having proper defence and representation, and you know it.

Let's imagine this scenario, you are taken at night from your home by Secret Service agents for criticising Obama, shipped out of the country and stripped of your nationality by executive decree. Would you argue that this is a legally binding action just because it can be demonstrated that you have a lawyer?

This seems to translate to "Nobody can be judged but by judge or competent court with the formalities, right and guarantees that the Law establishes. " Well, the highest court in Honduras did the judging and what formalities, rights and guarantees was Zelaya not afforded?

No, the highest court cannot decide in this case BECAUSE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION to indict someone who is accused. Zelaya was not afforded his right of presumption of innocence, his right to a proper trial and proper defence, so of course, the action is illegal.

This seems to translate to "In the cases of pressure and other measures of equal nature in civil or labor matter, as well as in those of fine or arrest in matter of police, should always be heard the affected." I think we've heard too much from Zelaya, if you want my opinion.

Poorly translated. "Apremio" is a legal term which can be roughly translated as any removal of rights, in other words, in any situation where you would have one of your rights removed, you have the right to be heard in court of law. You know, due process and proper legal representation. This is a basic human right, and it was never followed in this situation. Truly, you are making yourself look like a partisan idiot.

I will repeat this again, I HATE ZELAYA. Most of us do here in Costa Rica. This does not change the fact that he ws the subject of a military coup. Things would have gone smoother if he had been incarcerated and the constitutional procedure for removal from office had been followed.

No, the Constitution states very clearly that if you do what Zelaya did you are no longer a Honduran citizen. And countries have every right to throw non-citizens out of the country.

No, it does not say that, as with any penalty in any legal system in the world, removal of rights have to be declared in a court of law after due process and proper representation. It does not matter how many times you state the opposite, clinging to a single line in the Honduran constitution while ignoring article after article that contradicts your version of events. It is clear that you are out of your depth here.

Well leftists aren't the only ones that are sometimes a little clueless. And maybe Arias is just acting out of personal interest. I notice that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Óscar_Arias ) "the Costa Rican constitution had been amended to include a clause which forbade former presidents seeking reelection. Arias challenged this in Sala IV, the Constitutional Court, which initially rejected his application. That ruling came down in September 2000. Arias then used his considerable political connections to alter the Court´s composition and, with a majority of members favorable to his cause, succeeded at the second attempt -- April 2003 -- to have the constitution changed. Arias - to the surprise of no one - announced in 2004 that he intended to run again for president in the February 2006 general elections." Maybe he just feels the need to defend someone else who was trying to pull the same stunt.

Sigh, argument from Wikipedia, this is not at all what happened. Arias presented the first action when he was not president, he ruled from 1986-1990, and it is true that it was defeated. His political opponents were in power from 1998-2006! So he could not exercise any political power to change the setup of the court, because the ones calling the shots were his political opponents. The truth is more complicated than that, what happened was that there was an agreement between several former presidents who wanted to run for re-election, including Arias, Figueres, Miguel Angel Rodriguez and Rafael Angel Calderon. After re-election was approved by the Constitutional Court, Calderon and Rodriguez were accused of corruption, so they could not run. Arias beat the Chavez-funded PAC, so I am guessing that one of the Chavez followers edited the Wikipedia article to include that slight against Arias. As I said, Chavez hates Arias, and by implication, so do his followers.

So my point stands. Nobody in the hemisphere has condoned the coup, including the very rightist governments of Mexico and Colombia.

BeAChooser

2nd August 2009, 11:01 AM

1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness article 5.

Basicaly you are not allowed to make a person stateless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness

Article 8
Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).

I'd say the Zelaya was disloyal to the Contracting State per it's Constitution.

And by the way, Honduras never ratified or acceded to the Convention. :D

Dr Adequate

2nd August 2009, 06:06 PM

So what? It says it's a "curious letter" But it doesn't say the letter been proven a forgery. It says "There has been little mention of the letter by the interim government since." But so what? In the US, the Clinton administration claimed to have *discovered* a torn up suicide note in Vince Foster's briefcase (even though it had been checked by Park Police earlier). They claimed it proved Foster committed suicide. But that note has clearly been shown to have been forged (I've talked about that on this forum a number of times). And guess what? The Clinton administration and US government has made little mention of the letter since. Why aren't you equally upset about that injustice, geni? Maybe the US government acted illegally in murdering Foster? You have to admit that a forged suicide note that was discovered in a brief case that was in the hands of the Clinton administration at the time is mighty incriminating. Wow ... you managed to work a thread about a coup in Honduras round to a rant about Vince Foster.

You have talents, of a sort. Did you ever consider applying them to an end that isn't completely stupid?

BeAChooser

4th August 2009, 06:38 PM

The entire point being made, which you seem unwilling and/or unable to understand, is that he was still a citizen until a proper procedure through the courts was undertaken, which is not the case here.

Sorry, but Honduras highest court (none higher) has stated in no uncertain terms that Zelaya was legitimately expelled.

The Constitutiona Court cannot strip him of his citizenship because it does not have jurisdiction to do so

By all means ... link us to the document and cite the portions that says the Supreme Court of Honduras lacks such a jurisdiction.

Let's imagine this scenario, you are taken at night from your home by Secret Service agents for criticising Obama, shipped out of the country and stripped of your nationality by executive decree. Would you argue that this is a legally binding action just because it can be demonstrated that you have a lawyer?

It would be legally binding if the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allowed it and ordered that to happen. It wasn't a case of "executive decree." At least try to keep your analogy similar. :D

No, the highest court cannot decide in this case BECAUSE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION to indict someone who is accused.

Prove it. Show us the documents or laws that say that the Supreme Court of Honduras has no jurisdicton in this case.

Poorly translated. "Apremio" is a legal term which can be roughly translated as any removal of rights, in other words, in any situation where you would have one of your rights removed,

But citizenship isn't a "right". Citizenship is granted to you for meeting certain requirements of birth and what not. And if the Constitution states that you lose citizenship if you do such and such ... and you do such and such ... then the act of doing that removes your citizenship and eliminates any "rights" you think you are entitled to as a citizen.

you have the right to be heard in court of law. You know, due process and proper legal representation. This is a basic human right,

No, I believe our founders said you are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I don't seen anything there about being entitled (as a non-citizen) to due process and proper legal representation.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No, the Constitution states very clearly that if you do what Zelaya did you are no longer a Honduran citizen. ... snip ..

No, it does not say that

Yes it does. Article 42 states quite clearly that anyone who "incites, promotes or supports the reelection of the President" will lose citizenship after sentencing of the courts. The highest court in the land has ruled. So the only appeal left to Zelaya is to the leftist media, leftist dictators in the region, and leftist-loving Obama. It seems to me ANYONE can read what the Honduras Constitution states and see that Zelaya did exactly what was explicitly forbidden and that the penalty for doing so is [b]loss of citizenship and loss of political office". Can't you? The constitution calls for a vote to indict and remove the president in specific cases of breach of duty and they did that. In the case of the removal of the president, the president of congress shall become the new president, and they did that. So what more do you want?

as with any penalty in any legal system in the world, removal of rights have to be declared in a court of law after due process and proper representation.

But citizenship is not a right.

Sigh, argument from Wikipedia, this is not at all what happened.

Your description sounds no different than that in Wikipedia. Unless your are denying that the Costa Rican constitution included a clause prohibiting former presidents from reelection. Unless you are denying that Arias tried and failed to get it overturned in 2000. Unless you are denying that he used his connections to alter the Court's makeup. But you aren't. So like I said, perhaps Arias just feels that since he got to alter a constitution of his country to allow him to run again, Zelaya should have the same opportunity in Honduras. :D

Dr Adequate

4th August 2009, 08:02 PM

The highest court in the land has ruled. So the only appeal left to Zelaya is to the leftist media, leftist dictators in the region, and leftist-loving Obama. And to every government in the world, left, right, and center.

As you knew perfectly well when you wrote that rubbish.

I ask you once again: whom do you hope to deceive? You know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you know that you're talking nonsense. You know that we know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you know that we know that you're talking nonsense. You know that we know that you know that you're talking nonsense.

And this is what puzzles me about you. You must know perfectly well that your lies can't possibly deceive anyone. So why do you bother telling them?

Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?

joobz

4th August 2009, 08:22 PM

And to every government in the world, left, right, and center.

As you knew perfectly well when you wrote that rubbish.

I ask you once again: whom do you hope to deceive? You know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you know that you're talking nonsense. You know that we know that you're talking nonsense. We know that you know that we know that you're talking nonsense. You know that we know that you know that you're talking nonsense.
Is BAC Kleinman?

Darth Rotor

4th August 2009, 08:43 PM

This is a unique military coup, but it is a coup nonetheless, Zelaya was removed by the military and not by the judiciary.
I guess you didn't read marksman's posts. Please go back and do so. The military in Honduras have federal police powers, which here in America, for example, they don't. The military acted on legitimate orders from civil authority in the removal from office, but, and this is an immense but, rather than jailing him in Honduras, they threw him out of the country. Why? Not sure. In doing so, they screwed themselves in re their relations with their neighbors.
The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.
Not a coup, but as I see it from here up North, a staggering failure in judgment to toss him out of the country.

Note: Since your nation has, IIRC, no military, maybe you don't understand the nuances of the various roles militaries play in other nations.

I am still puzzled at why the Honduran congress, courts, and military chose to not keep this whole thing internal. My guess: him still being in the country would cause riots?

No idea.

DR