The coup that wasn't

Why can’t Obama get his facts straight about the removal of Honduras President Zelaya? Is it because Zelaya is closely aligned with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez?

Obama and democrats: imagine that as Bush approached the end of his second term he ordered an ‘opinion poll’ authorizing a convention to write a new constitution so he could serve a third term and then a fourth. Would removing him from office at that point properly be called a ‘coup’?

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." ~csmonitor.com


The congress of Honduras along with the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office after his illegal actions attempting to prolong his term of office. This is the definition of the rule of law not a coup. So why can't Obama get his facts straight?
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered [?] the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term. ~reuters.com


Does Obama ally himself with leftist dictators because he longs to be one? It would make things easier for him in transforming America.
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. ~csmonitor.com


So why is Obama intent on reinstalling Zelaya who basically threatened to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and who no doubt would like to transform Honduras into a copy of Venezuela? Are they all just brothers-in-arms? Comrades in the struggle? Co-workers of light?


Posted by Eric Simonson at July 3, 2009 12:32 AM
Comments
Comment #283916

Not one country on the face of the planet recognizes the new government. Not one. Communist, capitalist, next-door-neighbor, socialist, leftist, rightist, liberal, conservative, neutral, Islamic, secular, North Korean, Israeli, you name it; not one nation recognizes the overthrow as legitimate, other than the Hondurans who perpetrated the coup.

Restoring Zedaya? Clearly this must be the work of liberals and Obama, who are in cahoots with commies, reds, pinkos, bleeding hearts, Chavez, religious fanatics, atheists, Al Qaida, both Muslims and Islamofascists (if there is a difference), Jews, Greens, Iranian Mullahs, and possibly polar bears.

It’s the conservative GOP against the world!

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2009 1:44 AM
Comment #283917

Wow. Talk about your activist judges… heh…

But seriously, folks-
Resolving a political disagreement by having the military kidnap the president, forcibly deport him, and then take over the reins of government, all in the name of protecting the constitution, is never going to fly with anyone. Reading a fake letter of resignation in the legislature that is supposedly from the president, even as the president protests from another country that he didn’t write it, isn’t going to fool anybody. There are right ways and wrong ways to revolve political disagreements.

Military coup? This was the wrong way.

Posted by: phx8 at July 3, 2009 2:45 AM
Comment #283920

It’s a coup, Eric. Hell, it’s a cliched coup at that, the military spiriting the president out of the country and the rest of the government replacing him. If they relieved him of his position by legal methods, this would be a legitimate action. But as of this point, an popularly elected official has been deposed by the military.

This is no more legitimate than stealing the vote in an election to re-elect an unpopular but ideologically favored candidate. Now, if we took your suggestion, and did not call a military coup what it was, how much credibility would we have when we commented on a vote that somebody did the Cold Fusion number on?

If the military was in on the plot, that should tell you something critical: they weren’t going to leap to his aid if somebody decided to arrest or at least legally remove him from office for his crimes. Without their support, there was no continuismo, or whatever its called, simply because the strongest institution for ensuring that continued rule would be eliminated from his base of support.

Zelaya could not enforce his will at gunpoint. He could ask, but the Army wasn’t necessarily going to back his play.

Something else: The statement as to his removal was given after the fact. Congress and the Judiciary papered over the military coup.

And one last thing: If you recall correctly, the way Hugo Chavez himself was propelled to prominence, and given such latitude, was the undemocratic coup that followed his election. The same mistake was made here. If you don’t want leftists to have higher political profile, you don’t make them political martyrs.

The Republicans must stop imagining that because they believe their cause is right that folks are licensed to invalidate elections and overthrow legitimate governments. One has to ask, that after three or four years of denying one critical vote after another the opportunity to see an up and down vote, whether Republicans believe any more that a majority rules when it’s not their majority.

If the Republicans want Democracy to win out, and the constitution to be observed, they can start here at home, thank you very much.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2009 8:43 AM
Comment #283921

eric

“The congress of Honduras along with the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office after his illegal actions attempting to prolong his term of office. This is the definition of the rule of law not a coup. So why can’t Obama get his facts straight?”

do you suppose it’s because obama fears the same thing may happen to him when he refuses to leave office after being thrown out after his first term. ;-)

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2009 8:59 AM
Comment #283923

eric

you know it’s kind of ironic being as the left here at WB as i remember was throwing out conspirocy theories about how bush was going to find some reason to try and remain in office after his second term was up. now thier siding with a man who was trying to do just that, in violation of his own countries constitution…oh well…go figure.

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2009 9:08 AM
Comment #283931

Just more crazy talk from the right. Is it not time to stop this petty hyperbole and work to improve this country.

Posted by: Jeff at July 3, 2009 10:59 AM
Comment #283939

phx8,

The rule of law means that even the President has to obey the law. The military were ordered to remove Zelaya by two branches of the Honduran government.

Do you also agree with Obama that he can’t “meddle” with the Iranian regime who run phony elections but he can meddle to reinstall a leftist president attempting to run phony election?

Obama stands with Castro, Chavez, and Zelaya, what more needs to be said?

Posted by: eric at July 3, 2009 4:00 PM
Comment #283940

Stephen,

Is Chavez and Castro style democracy what you want to defend?

It seems incomprehensible to me to not be able to see that what Chavez has done in Venezuela is not democracy or rule of law.

Do you see nothing wrong with Chavez’s experiment in subverting democracy? Zelaya is an ally of Chavez and Castro, and he was not minding his own business when the military decided to take over the country. Notice that there is no general running the country now.

Do you dispute that Zelaya was attempting to extend his rule and expressely violated the constitution?

Chavez himself attempted to take over Venezuela in a military coup previously.

I fear that those who support the idea that this was purely a military coup do so purely because they support the end result of a more socialist central America.

Posted by: eric at July 3, 2009 4:10 PM
Comment #283941

Maybe the problem is that this is coming from a source that you would reflexively oppose, despite how right I am about everything.

A DailyKos blogger explains:

Updated: You are wrong about Honduras.

I agree with this author that our news media is incompetent to the point of getting stories wrong seemingly on purpose.

Posted by: eric at July 3, 2009 4:38 PM
Comment #283942

Would it matter if the constitutions required the military to remove Zelaya from office:

# Chapter 10, Article 272:
The Armed Forces of Honduras are … established to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic.

Consitutionally, it is the military that is charged, in concert with civilian organs of government, to ensure that the one-term limit of the presidency is enforced. It is the military that is constitutionally charged with ensuring the intregrity of national elections.

Therefore, the removal of Zelaya from office by the army was not merely appropriate, it was constitutionally required that the army do so. Why does the army have such responsibilities? See my post, “The role of the Honduran military,” in the country’s history. ~senseofevents.blogspot.com

Posted by: eric at July 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Comment #283944
Is Chavez and Castro style democracy what you want to defend?

What an interestingly loaded question! No. Democracy and the rule of law period. It can’t merely work in one direction. If the Congress of that nation had protested Zelaya’s actions and he had tried to use the military to push things his way, I would support the Congress. Left or right, everybody must be moderated.

It seems incomprehensible to me to not be able to see that what Chavez has done in Venezuela is not democracy or rule of law.

And how did he justify it? By pointing at America, and saying they supported trying to kick him out with a coup!

Do you see nothing wrong with Chavez’s experiment in subverting democracy? Zelaya is an ally of Chavez and Castro, and he was not minding his own business when the military decided to take over the country. Notice that there is no general running the country now.

I see plenty wrong with what Chavez did. And I think Zelaya was blatantly flouting the that. I don’t dispute Zelaya’s crimes, but I don’t believe two wrongs make a right. He should suffer the consequences under the law, and that should stand as an example to all, left, right, top, or bottom as to what legitimacy in government requires. It’s not the rule of force, nor the rule of sneaky bastardry, it’s the rule of law, and that only works when all are accountable.

I fear that those who support the idea that this was purely a military coup do so purely because they support the end result of a more socialist central America.

Better watch out. A socialist might jump out at you and go Boo!

But seriously, I think Central America should go in Central America’s direction. As long as they’re not making trouble for us, that’s their business. But we do not have to grant legitimacy to governments that take power by non-democratic force. It should have been done with in the laws of the country, rather than in this shameful way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #283946

where was your call to stop the crazy talk, and hyperbole when it was comming from the left?

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2009 6:00 PM
Comment #283948

What would my left leaning colleagues have said if President Bush has devised a plan that would alter the Constitution to allow him to stay in office past his term and then defied the Supreme Court and the Congress to push ahead with his plan?

Should the military carry out his orders as commander in chief? Is democracy only elections? One man, one vote one more time?

The coup is nasty business. Perhaps a potential dictator is too. Let’s let it run its course.

Posted by: Christine at July 3, 2009 6:41 PM
Comment #283949

dbs-
I’d say he should be impeached, and thrown out of office, and if he broke any laws, should be punished. The Armed Forces should refuse his orders, if he stays on one day longer than he is entitled to under the constitution.

And if they do not refuse his orders? Well then it’s civil war.

Note something there: We only go to extralegal means after legal processes have broken down, and armed rebellion against an illegitimate government becomes necessary.

What purpose does rhetoric like this serve?

Or like this?

These are mainstream, popular personalities with in the party, who seem to have a lot of pull with members of the party, seem to have a lot of power over members of Congress. All during the Iraq War, people like me were tarred and feathered for disagreeing with a war policy, called traitors, called treasonous.

These guys often did that name-calling, spread that hateful rhetoric. And what happens the minute they lose power?

Well, all of a sudden, their absence means that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. All of a sudden, the radical idea of a minority taking back power by force is an okay suggestion to make. It’s alright to wish that some attack would come and wipe out a number of Americans. It’s alright to tell people to refuse to participate in a constitutionally mandated census, okay to suggest, as one person did, that it’s time for Christians to band together and lead a revolution.

And here you have Eric coming across with the suggestion that the reason Obama is treating this as an illegitimate coup is that he wants to foster socialism, here and abroad.

When are the adults and the sane people going to take back control of your party? Because the Republicans have gone frighteningly around the bend. They have come to accept the unacceptable, and speak the unspeakable, all in the name of winning the next political battle.

If there is to be a coup, let it be a nice, safe, metaphorical political manuever where some moderates and practical people take over the Republican party and save it from itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2009 7:17 PM
Comment #283950

Stephen,

You are missing the point and I think you have been misled by a lack of factual reporting.

The military in Honduras also serve as law enforcement officers. They carried out their legal and procedural position in removing Zelaya.

The judicial branch ordered Zelaya to stop his convening of a constitutional convention. He refused and then called it something else, a poll. The judicial branch ordered it stopped and forbid anyone from taking part in it. The congress voted and forbid the process from going forward.

Then Zelaya ordered all government employees to take part. The military are the ones who actually administer the ballots. They were ordered not to go forward with the vote by both the congress and the supreme court. The military complied. Zelaya then attempted to fire the heads of the military.

At this point the Attorney General stepped in and ordered the Military to remove Zelaya.

This wasn’t a coup in any sense that you seem to portray it. It was a constitutional government following procedure and Zelaya forced their hand every step of the way.

Furthermore, when the army’s chief of staff refused to send Zelaya’s ballots to polling places, Zelaya personally led a mob to the warehouse, stole the ballots and had his minions start to distribute them. This act also violated the constitution because only the army has the constitutional authority to do so. ~senseofevents.blogspot.com

Zelaya’s own majority party (liberal by the way) ordered him out. They went through their constitutional process and the result of that is called the rule of law. They followed the law and Zelaya did not.

Posted by: eric at July 3, 2009 8:13 PM
Comment #283954

A constitutionally legal military coup. Only in the Latin Americas!

No impeachment process. No trial affording due process before removing the elected President. Just have the military arrest and deport the President without trial for his alleged offenses. “Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible.” Seems like the cart before the horse to me. But, perhaps I am missing something about the fine points of Honduran due process.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2009 10:30 PM
Comment #283959

This will be settled in the next few days. Zedaya will be re-instated, and in return, he will agree not to hold a non-binding referendum, and he will step down by 2010.

Not one country has recognized the new Honduran government. European governments have withdrawn their ambassadors. Neighboring countries have suspended trade. The major banks are denying credit. Tomorrow, Saturday, the OAS will kick out Honduras if they don’t bring back Zedaya.

Honduras is a very poor nation, but I suspect the denial of credit will be enough of a stick, and an under the table offer of financial aid will be enough of a carrot, to incentivize the Hondurans into a negotiated settlement.

Supposedly President Zedaya was dropped off at a foreign airport in his pajamas. I doubt that’s true, but it should be!

Posted by: phx8 at July 4, 2009 12:07 AM
Comment #283961

Eric-
If it was a constitutional coup, why did they shut down the media and declare martial law? And why did they do this in advance?

I’m not going to say that Zelaya wasn’t doing his own violations, but why do it the classic form of a Central American Coup? It doesn’t matter whether the military kept the power, it matters that for even a moment, the military was the organization deciding who had it.

It just seems to me that folks are forgetting how this was carried out, and appealling to the appearance of legality that was constructed after the fact.

It also seems to me that you and others are appealing to the politics of President Zelaya as a reason for his removal from office, decrying his Hugo Chavez-like politics and bringing up the notion that Obama’s opposing this coup because he’s also a socialist.

Oh, and of course, American politic rhetoric about Obama overstepping his constitutional powers and instituting socialism. Rush Limbaugh, your party’s unofficial leader, in fact asked whether some people would come from Honduras to help them here.

Careful, folks. Sometimes talk is cheap, but there are times when the wrong word, and bad ideas can cost one dearly. The Republicans have allowed a major defeat to shock them out of their good senses. What can’t you justify? Just when I think that folks like you can’t shock me or surprise me with what you favor, you guys turn around and do it yet again.

Is it just that Obama is saying up, so you have to say down? Is it just that the guy is from the left wing, so it all has to be a conspiracy? Is it just that you simply can’t accept that your fellow right-wingers are no long in power, or even popular, and feel it necessary to take action to take back what you think you’re entitled to?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2009 8:24 AM
Comment #283968

Does it not give anyone pause that at least two of the generals involved here attended the “School of Americas”?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2009 12:08 PM
Comment #283979

Rocky,

Pause? No. Deja Vu,perhaps. What day is it? Another Coup d’etat in Central America. I’m feeling French today.

Posted by: gergle at July 4, 2009 3:05 PM
Comment #283982

Speaking of France….Go, Lance!

Posted by: gergle at July 4, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #284049

“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

I know I am late to this discussion, but… seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 2:34 PM
Comment #284054

Doug,

Where in the Honduran Constitution does it say that anyone that violates this statement should be rousted out of bed, taken to the airport in their pajamas and shipped off to another country, which, BTW, also violates the Honduran Constitution.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 6, 2009 3:03 PM
Comment #284055

so… this is really about pajamas? Was he wearing his cute little jammies with the footies and yellow rubber duckies and is a little embarrassed by it or something? I had no idea this was about pajamas…

I guess I mistakenly thought that the army was acting on lawful orders from the other two legitimate branches of government to immediately remove someone from power that was trying to break the law… go figure… who knew it was about his wittle jammies…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 3:08 PM
Comment #284060

Cute Doug.

Article 81 of the Honduran Constitution states:

“Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.”
or,
“Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in the national territory.”

Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution states:

“Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero.”
or,
“No Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state.”

It is possible that Zelaya violated the Honduran Constitution, however, arrest him, and if you can, try him.
This whole senario, including the fact that the two generals involved in this attended the “School of Americas”, reeks of our meddling in the ’60s and ’70s.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 6, 2009 3:46 PM
Comment #284064

Rocky… good, now we are getting somewhere.

So far the uproar has been over whether or not the President was removed from power legally. To me, it is a pretty clear case that he was. If we want to shift the debate to whether or not he should have been sent to Costa Rica… well, that is another topic altogether. But should he have been removed from power? THAT is the thrust of the discussion here:

“Resolving a political disagreement by having the military kidnap the president…” (phx8 above)

Wrong… the Honduran Consitution is pretty clear that this is more than a ‘political disagreement’ and is VERY specific on the action that should be taken.

“It’s a coup, Eric. Hell, it’s a cliched coup at that, the military spiriting the president out of the country and the rest of the government replacing him. If they relieved him of his position by legal methods, this would be a legitimate action. But as of this point, an popularly elected official has been deposed by the military.” (Stephen above)

Once again… wrong. It WAS legal… as is rather clearly outlined in that country’s constitution. Let me repeat:

…will immediately cease in their functions…

There is no mention of impeachment proceedings… a long drawn out court battle. He will IMMEDIATELY be removed from power. What about this is unclear?

We may disagree as to whether or not removing this bozo from power is the right thing to do. By our U.S. Consitution there would be a long impeachment process… but it’s not OUR constitution in question. The simple, black and white, truth remains… removing Zelaya from power was the legally correct thing to do.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 4:24 PM
Comment #284066

Also… the fact that the generals attended the School of Americas is… well… boring and irrelevent. I’m sure there are many Latin American service members that have since ascended to the rank of general that attended the School of Americas. In and of itself, it is nothing more than a slight curiosity.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #284072

Doug,

OK, fine.
So he has been accused of violating the Honduran Constitution, and under orders from the other branches of government was detained.

So…

Why arrest (kidnap?) him in the dark of night?
Why pack him off to an air force base and then off to Costa Rica?
Why forge a resignation and read that resignation to the country?
Why keep him out of the country?
Hell, why not just arrest him, hold him and try him?

BTW,
What you find boring and irelevent I find curiously coincidental. There were some particularly nasty graduates of that “school”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 6, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #284073

“Hell, why not just arrest him, hold him and try him?”

A good and fair question. As long as we are aware that, under the Honduran constitution, he would need to be removed from power immediately upon arrest… before the trial could take place.

Again… I’m not saying the people behind this are saints… I’m not saying he should have been been shipped to Costa Rica… in his jammies. Not saying that at all… just saying that from what I can see he was removed from power legally. What happened after that? Well… these are good and fair questions.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #284074

And yes… some particularly nasty graduates indeed… never disputed that. My point is that there are likely many graduates that have since made the rank of general… In and of itself, I don’t find it all that coincidental.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #284082

Doug,

There are provisions in the Honduran Constitution for impeachment. They were not followed. There are no provisions in the Honduran Constitution for the military to arrest and deport an elected official for alleged violations of the Constitution. The chief legal counsel for the military admits such. The top Honduran military lawyer admitted to the Miami Herald in an interview that the military broke the law in arresting and deporting Zelya. He thinks that they will be forgiven due to the circumstances.

No matter how you cut it, it was a coup. It was not legal.

Posted by: Rich at July 6, 2009 8:22 PM
Comment #284093

I have made no comments as to whether or not the deportation was legal, nor do I care to do so… so would anyone that would continue to speak the legality/illegality of it please take notice. Now then…

The removal of this president from power was legal and within the confines of that country’s constitution. Again, I would point out:

“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

What about this is unclear? The word ‘immediate’ is fairly clear… is it not? Maybe there are provisions for impeachment, but not for this. The constitution is VERY clear in terms of what to do when an elected official tries to change the constitution in order to stay in power longer. This clause was put in the constitution in order to keep dictators from staying in power for too long and gaining too much power. Latin America has a long history of Presidents staying in power too long and gaining too much power.

So… yes, there may be provisions for impeachment, but not for this offense… if anyone can show me evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me… otherwise, it is very clear that removing Zelaya from power was the perfectly legal response to his attempt to stay in power.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 6, 2009 11:25 PM
Comment #284098

Doug,

“Latin America has a long history of Presidents staying in power too long and gaining too much power.”

Latin America also has a long tradition of coups taking place.
There is a very fine line between what has happened, legal or not, and a coup.

Now, had the military done it’s job correctly Zelaya should be in jail awaiting trial for the “crimes” he has committed against the people of Honduras.

As it stands there is a lot of questionable behaviour on both sides of this issue, to answer for.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 7, 2009 1:34 AM
Comment #284102

Doug Langworthy-
It is very clear? Show me where the constitution says “In case of constitutional offenses meriting removal, the military has the right to shut down communications and the media, forcefully arrest the President, exile him to a foreign country, and then declare martial law”?

I mean, this is a trademark coup d’etat. That Congress and the courts almost immediately take over doesn’t make this explanation less like, but more so, since these plots are often plots between parts of government, rather than just those parts alone.

There are a lot of steps between removal from office, which which is what the constitution does call for, and a full blown coup d’etat.

If everything is legitimate, why the clampdown on the media, why the martial law? Why the resignation letter that wasn’t? These are not the actions of a part of the government acting within the law. These are the actions of folks who are preparing for a backlash from a very radical action.

Consider that, while you cheerlead the legitimacy of this “constitutional” move.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 7, 2009 6:37 AM
Comment #284103

Doug,

The heart of the rule of law is due process.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, a senior strategist for the new government said “Due process is a fine principle and works in America and Britain, but this is Honduras.”

In essence, the “new government” is saying that in order to save the constitution, it had to act unconstitutionally.


Posted by: Rich at July 7, 2009 7:29 AM
Comment #284119

“Consider that, while you cheerlead the legitimacy of this “constitutional” move.”

How very clever… cheerlead? What a completely stupid thing to say from one who’s posts are usually much more intelligent and thought out. Surprising…

I have made no statements one way or the other regarding the new government’s/military’s actions in regards to how they have gone about this whole thing… none. One could hardly say I am a cheerleader for it.

I think Rocky says it better:

“There is a very fine line between what has happened, legal or not, and a coup.”

True… even if the removal from power was legal, the means by which it is happening may not be. Once we get past the initial removal from power and can agree that the Honduran constitution allows for this (indeed, requires it), then we can begin discussion on the legalities of the other issues at play.

But they should not be confused.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 7, 2009 11:47 AM
Comment #288878

“I have made no statements one way or the other regarding the new government’s/military’s actions in regards to how they have gone about this whole thing… none. One could hardly say I am a cheerleader for it.”

Can it be that the same person who said the above, also said the quotes below? All in this thread? You sound like a cheerleader to me. Just sayin’…..

“I guess I mistakenly thought that the army was acting on lawful orders from the other two legitimate branches of government to immediately remove someone from power that was trying to break the law… go figure…” Doug

” It WAS legal… as is rather clearly outlined in that country’s constitution. Let me repeat:

…will immediately cease in their functions…

There is no mention of impeachment proceedings… a long drawn out court battle. He will IMMEDIATELY be removed from power. What about this is unclear?

We may disagree as to whether or not removing this bozo from power is the right thing to do. By our U.S. Consitution there would be a long impeachment process… but it’s not OUR constitution in question. The simple, black and white, truth remains… removing Zelaya from power was the legally correct thing to do.” Doug

“The removal of this president from power was legal and within the confines of that country’s constitution. Again, I would point out:

“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

What about this is unclear? The word ‘immediate’ is fairly clear… is it not? Maybe there are provisions for impeachment, but not for this.” Doug

Posted by: just passing at October 3, 2009 3:48 AM
Post a comment