It’s Not a Coup If the Guy Is a Leftist

So, there is a military coup in Honduras and the only part of the issue you can manage to focus upon is a complaint about how a right-wing blogger is covering it?

WOW. Your obsessive hatred of the right wing has completely destroyed any sense of proportion or relevance, hasn't it? It seems that issues don't even exist to you except as vehicles for expressing your hatred of conservatives.

That is a sad, sad way to relate to the world, especially on a "moderate voice".

Yeah well, hatred seems to perpetuate itself at the extremes.

gadfly: This is not the first one-line hit piece by you (directed at Kathy) I've read recently so I looked back at your last ten DISQUS Comments and it seems you spend an extraordinary amount of time simply attacking Kathy Kattenbury.
As you never seem to offer counterpoints to her position or reply to the topic at hand I'm curious as to what you think you're accomplishing... other than pushing TMV Comment Policy to the limit while practicing your attack mode / ad hominem.

"CNN en español mentioned that Zelaya was arrested by court order. This signals that all the Honduran institutions were behind this move, in which case the president was overthrown, but it would not be a coup d’etat."
And
"The Honduran Congress has officially ousted Zelaya “for repeated violations to the Constitution” and has now named the Congress President Roberto Micheletti as president of the country."

So if two out of three parts of the govt agree it is a bit hard to call it a coup isn't it? Do you even bother to read your links Kathy?

The first eight words in this post explain everything:

"I know next to nothing about Honduran politics.."

And it shows. Why don't you read what Fausta is writing about or follow the links she provides first and then write your opinion?

From the LAT article linked from my post:

Honduran army troops seized President Manuel Zelaya early today and sent the leftist president into exile in a coup reminiscent of Latin America's unstable past. Later, a hastily convened Honduran Congress voted to replace Zelaya with one of his fiercest opponents.

Roberto Micheletti, head of the Congress, was named acting president even as world condemnation of the coup grew.

The military action followed weeks of confrontation between Zelaya and conservative forces in Honduras that came to a head over possible changes to the nation's constitution. Zelaya had scheduled a referendum for today to measure support for the changes, including one that would allow the president to be re-elected. The vote was canceled.

EEllis,

Do you bother to read my links?

So if two out of three parts of the govt agree it is a bit hard to call it a coup isn't it?

So you're telling me that if Congress and the Pentagon agree to overthrow Barack Obama, eject him from the country, and replace him with, say, John Boehner, that would not be a coup?

Why don't you read what Fausta is writing about or follow the links she provides first and then write your opinion?

Why are you assuming I didn't?

Thanks, SteveK.

It sounds more analogous to an impeachment rather than a coup.

SteveK,

Considering what I read from you on another thread recently, I don't think you have any ground to criticize other people about "ad hominum attacks" or "pushing the TMV comment policy to the limit".

The fact that you share her hatred of right wingers should not give you guys special privileges, should it?

Or are you a moderator empowered to enforce the TMV comment policy? If so, that would explain why you are able to yell at other people for violating a policy that you have no problem violating yourself.

Why are you assuming I didn't?

Well, you are still saying is a coup. I too thought it was a coup when I first read about it and even Fausta initial post said it was a coup. As more information became available I learned that President Zelaya was trying to ammend Hondura's constitution using a referundum so he could run again next November. Hondura's constitution cannot be modified by referendum, Hondura's congress and supreme court told him so, his own party told him so but he continued with plans to hold the referendum. So, he was deposed and arrested with a supreme court's order. So is not a coup and Fausta updated her post to account for new information.

So, that's why I'm assuming you didn't.

It sounds more analogous to an impeachment rather than a coup.

In what particular does it sound analogous to an impeachment? We have had impeachment proceedings in the U.S. Did they involve forcibly removing the president from office, ejecting him from his country, and installing his political rival in his place?

If so, I must have missed something.

Well, you are still saying is a coup.

Okay, so the president of Honduras insisted on carrying out an action that Honduras's legislature had declared to be unlawful. That happened hundreds of times under George W. Bush -- every time Congress passed a law Bush didn't like, he attached a signing statement saying he would interpret the law to allow him to do what he wanted to do, regardless of what Congress or the law said.

Did the U.S. military march in to the Oval Office, forcibly remove Bush from office, eject him from the country, and put his biggest political rival in the White House in his place?

Manuel Velaya was deposed in a coup.

So your assumption that I did not read Fausta's links is without merit.

In what particular does it sound analogous to an impeachment? We have had impeachment proceedings in the U.S. Did they involve forcibly removing the president from office, ejecting him from his country, and installing his political rival in his place?

If so, I must have missed something.

You're just being snotty now. It's analogous to an impeachment in that their congress recommended his removal and it sounds like it was upheld by the court.

It's analogous to an impeachment in that their congress recommended his removal and it sounds like it was upheld by the court.

Oh, please. You're better than this, DaGoat, even though I usually disagree with your opinions. Your "explanation" explains nothing. "Their congress recommended his removal and it sounds like it was upheld by the court" -- is analogous to an impeachment? How is that analogous to an impeachment? Were there articles of impeachment drawn up? Was there a trial? Was there a conviction?

I mean, god, DaGoat, give me a break. Give yourself a break. Don't insult your own intelligence this way.

If this is the best you've got to give anymore, I have every reason to be snotty. But I don't think it is. I really do think you're smarter than this nonsense would indicate.

Kathy is just jealous that it didn't happen to SkippyBushHitlerHaliburtonSatan.

If his own party thinks he's mentally unstable . . . but why bother, read it yourself
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la...

O.k., let's call it a coup then, since that is what is being called by every news outlet running the story. But I still think is not a coup, risking being called obtuse.

I'm not an Honduran constitutional scholar, but I wanted to see what Honduras’s constitution said about reelection, since Manuel Zelaya was deposed for trying to hold a referendum about amending the constitution so he could run again in November of this year. This is what I found (my translation...I'm not a professional translator...and I'm drinking my third beer at this moment...so beware):

"ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. Is exercised by three branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial independent and complementary without relations of subordination. Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is mandatory. Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason."

I'm not sure I translated the "without relations of subordination" part correctly, so if you can read Spanish follow the link and see the original version. Anyway, Honduras’s constitution said that violating the rule about reelection "constitutes the crime of treason", which is a serious crime for a head of state to commit. So I ask: did Manuel Zelaya violated the rule about reelection by trying to hold what under Honduran law is a non-binding referendum on the question of modifying the constitution so he could run again?

Any lawyer (or better yet, Honduran constitutional scholar) among the commenters?

Hi, It's Dr. E here. I politely ask you not to shoot the messenger... or the writers at TMV... or each other.

The TMV rules for commenters are at the link atop our HOME page. If you are not familiar with TMV's Commenters' specifics, please read them. Amongst other TMV policies are these: that commenters not highjack posts; not advertise products; and not make ad hominem attacks on writers or commenters... but rather, debate/ discuss topic.

Appreciate it... as do other readers at TMV.

Thanks,
Dr.E.
Assistant Editor, The Moderate Voice

I did read and the 2 were congress and the courts, but why not ignore that right?

Kathy said "Okay, so the president of Honduras insisted on carrying out an action that Honduras's legislature had declared to be unlawful. That happened hundreds of times under George W. Bush -- every time Congress passed a law Bush didn't like, he attached a signing statement saying he would interpret the law to allow him to do what he wanted to do, regardless of what Congress or the law said.

Did the U.S. military march in to the Oval Office, forcibly remove Bush from office, eject him from the country, and put his biggest political rival in the White House in his place?"

There are so many things wrong with this comparison.

one It's Honduras not the US. They have their own laws and are allowed to do things their way and have issues and concerns that we don't.

two One of the biggest things wrong is that congress was mad at the Prez and that's why this happened. The supreme court gave the warrant to the military, and in Honduras they are used for police functions unlike the US.

three That he violated a law. No he ignored the constitution, which gives as a consequence immediate removal from office, by attempting to remain in office for more than one term.

Wikipedia :"A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État." -military historian Edward Luttwak

Honduran military involved, ergo, it's a bouncing baby coup Mr and Mrs Honduras. End of argument. It's not a "classic coup" in that sense but sometimes all it needs is the look/smell of it.He was not impeached, he was not asked to /or refused to step down peacefully or brought up in front of a Commitee -therefore strong-arm tactics were used- the gov't essentially issued a bench warrant for the GI José's to go to work. Weather the military was acting as soldiers or "peacekeepeers" makes no difference. He was ousted at the end of the barrel of the gun. Remember the Yeltsin coup in the 90's - tanks lined up at the Politboro? That was politically backed as well. The very word "coup" means to strike or blow, and the Honduran gov't struck one. All so much hair-splitting. But it's not the US so I guess we can't apply our rules to theirs.

I mean, god, DaGoat, give me a break. Give yourself a break. Don't insult your own intelligence this way.

Maybe you could discuss the topic without continually resorting to rudeness?

I don't know what mechanism the Honduran government uses to prevent abuses of power by their president. In the US it's impeachment, in Honduras maybe this is it, I don't know. I am saying it's analogous to impeachment (and indictment) in that the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court are removing their president from power. If they followed their own constitution it would be analogous to impeachment, if not it would be a coup. I doubt either of us are expert enough on the Honduran constitution to say, although I suspect we will find out soon.

In the US if the president was impeached and refused to leave eventually force would be used. When I say impeachment I am not referring to the mode of physically removing him from office.

I am an American that has lived in Honduras since 1977. I have seen this country when it was run by the military. I saw it form the constitution on which it currently stands. I saw the civilian police force be reformed and watch the judicial system grow and come into its own. I have watched the maturing of Honduras into a grounded solid representational democracy.

Venezuela and Ecuador are run by left wing dictators. Venezuela in particular was supporting a move by the president of Honduras to basically take over the country. This has resulted in a crisis pitting the executive branch against the congress and the supreme court with the military in the middle. The president was attempting to place himself in a position where by he could force a rewriting of the constitution to remove the clause on term limits there by allowing him to remain in office indefinitely. The illegal move toward the “cuarta urna” had created massive unrest across the country and Honduras was heading toward a confrontation which puts at risk the representational democracy on which this country stands.

Contrary to news reports this was no military coup nor conspiracy. This was two branches of government (supreme court and congress) moving to oust a president that was abusing his power and flaunting the law. Honduras saw the presidents actions as an overt and aggressive attempt to install a Chavez style dictatorship in Honduras and rejected that attempt in a lawful manner that resulted in the presidents removal from office. Hugo Chavez is an ego maniac that has attempted to spread his left wing dictatorship philosophy to many countries. He thought that he had obtained a foothold in Central America by way of Honduras. He was wrong.

The events of the last few weeks have shown me that my faith in Honduras and its people is not in vain. Honduras, you should be very proud of yourselves.

It sounds more analogous to an impeachment rather than a coup.

It's analogous to an impeachment in that their congress recommended his removal and it sounds like it was upheld by the court.

I don't know what mechanism the Honduran government uses to prevent abuses of power by their president. In the US it's impeachment, in Honduras maybe this is it, I don't know. I am saying it's analogous to impeachment (and indictment) in that the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court are removing their president from power. If they followed their own constitution it would be analogous to impeachment, if not it would be a coup. I doubt either of us are expert enough on the Honduran constitution to say, although I suspect we will find out soon.

In the US if the president was impeached and refused to leave eventually force would be used. When I say impeachment I am not referring to the mode of physically removing him from office.

The impeachment process as it works in the United States goes like this:

1. Congress (the House of Representatives) draws up articles of impeachment. They are like charges against the official being impeached -- what laws he broke; what he did to justify being impeached.

2. The president (or whatever official is being impeached) is given a trial. In the United States, the trial takes place in the Senate, I think. This trial is conducted like any other criminal trial, with evidence being presented, witnesses, etc. The prosecutor has the burden of proof.

3. The trial ends with either a verdict. Either the official is convicted or s/he is acquitted. If the former, s/he has to leave office. I imagine at that point, if the official refused to leave, s/he would be forcibly removed from office.

It does not sound to me like any process even close to this happened in Honduras. So, to me, when you say the forcible removal of Manuel Velaya from office, putting him on a plane and flying him out of the country, and putting his biggest political rival in as president, is analogous to impeachment -- and I assume you mean it's analogous to impeachment in the United States, because what other country's impeachment process would be familiar to us? -- I have to say that I do not think what happened in Honduras is analogous to impeachment in the United States.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Danielcdyer,

You wrote, "The events of the last few weeks have shown me that my faith in Honduras and its people is not in vain. Honduras, you should be very proud of yourselves."

I am puzzled. What did the people of Honduras have to do with the forcible removal of Manuel Velaya from office? From what I have read so far, they did not participate in overthrowing Velaya. Am I mistaken?

"From what I have read so far, they did not participate in overthrowing Velaya. Am I mistaken?"

Who do you think Honduras' congress is representing? On whom behalf did Honduras' supreme court interpreted the country's constitution?

"Your obsessive hatred of the right wing"

I'm not sure if it's this or childish PC fad-following, but it certainly is obvious and involved in the poor quality of the material in question. Kathy, your bias was blatant in your latest light-weight offering.

"Venezuela and Ecuador are run by left wing dictators."

See bottom for last word on this, but --

How's old Danny Ortega next door to Honduras these days? I'm surprised the Honduran president didn't flee to Nicaragua instead. It's kind of like the good old Cold War days (also subject to "misunderstanding" and strange treatment by the media and by lefties in Washington, as we see now with Team Obama and as we saw under Clinton with lefty Aristide in Haiti -- willing to invade and send our military on a PC mission to restore Aristide) where authoritarian officials who left East Bloc-related places didn't always go elsewhere in the East Bloc but fled to the West instead. I guess the Honduran president felt better fleeing to a democratic nation closest in character to those north of the Rio Grande than to a next-door nation where he could be "secure" among fellow leftist "comrades."

A serious issue here (neglected by most reporting, and something that no doubt would be avoided by Kathy and the subject of attacks by other childish people on here, against those who would point it out and object to it) is the blustering and threatening of Chavez to send the Venezuelan military to interfere on the leftist's (actually, in the region, the leftists') behalf.

As to remote forces, so the last word, similar to what the other poster experienced. Reporting by our Reagan-loathing liberal media in the 1980s (which often lent support to the deliberately insulting and illegal "sanctuary" movements by activists and more perverse and subversion-flirtatious local governments in the USA, as they were with their anti-nuclear "nuclear free zone," no-transit idiocy, etc.) was poor and often misleading, whereas those fleeing Nicaragua while I was living in Los Angeles and encountering them told the story of the leftism and the leftist forces that were being brought to Nicaragua thanks to the Soviets, the USSR's proxy forces, including specifically (they told me to my face) the "bucarenses."

(Go look it up and translate it if you don't recognize or understand that term, which makes it a useful exercise in that case.)

As a Honduran resident, I'd like to contribute a few words here. First of all, what happened here yesterday WAS NOT A COUP. I'd like to a refer to one of the few articles that get it right: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866... so you can get a broader view from another perspective. I strongly urge you to read the comments stated by fellow Hondurans, so you can get a notion of the general feelings of citizens here. Ex-president Zelaya repeatedly broke the law, ignored the country's real needs, ignored Supreme Court resolutions, and led a mob into a military base to steal seized balloting material for an illegal vote that would help him in his quest for re-election, banned under current law. Our military acted on Supreme Court orders, because the president broke laws stated on the Constitution, which bans ANY intention modifying of any of the Constitution's 6 unmodifiable out of roughly 400 modifiable articles. Once removed, the military immediately handed power over to congress, who promptly designated as president the next in line of sucession according to law. All actions taken here in the past days have been according to law and our Constitution, which puppet Zelaya was on the verge of changing following orders from totalitarian and puppetmaster Hugo Chavez from Venezuela. Our government's actions are a clear demonstration that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, not even the president. We want to live in peace, freedom and development.

It does not sound to me like any process even close to this happened in Honduras. So, to me, when you say the forcible removal of Manuel Velaya from office, putting him on a plane and flying him out of the country, and putting his biggest political rival in as president, is analogous to impeachment -- and I assume you mean it's analogous to impeachment in the United States, because what other country's impeachment process would be familiar to us? -- I have to say that I do not think what happened in Honduras is analogous to impeachment in the United States.

Kathy, you are focusing on the physical process of removing Velaya. I am talking about the political process that preceded it whereby Velaya was relieved of office by the Congress and Supreme Court. I don't know how else to say it.

In light of the articles of the Constitution of Honduras, especially 239, which states that anyone holding a public office who proposes to reform it shall immediately cease to perform their duties, this cannot be considered a coup.
According to the Constitution of Honduras, Zelaya ceased to be the President the moment that he proposed the reform of Article 239. As such, he legally was no longer the sitting president of Honduras when he was arrested. The fact that you disagree with a law does not give you the right to disobey the law without accepting the consequences of breaking that law. Zelaya violated article 239 of the Honduran constitution and in that moment ceased to be President. There was no “removal” of a president, because Zelaya had already removed himself from office when he advocated for the changing of article 239.

"Kathy is just jealous that it didn't happen to SkippyBushHitlerHaliburtonSatan."

SkippyBushHitlerHalliburtonSatan have actually taken Zelaya to Guantanamo and by the way, they also killed Michael Jackson because Jackson knew about the evil Darth Cheney's sexual picadillaloes with Rush Limbaugh at gatherings of the Bohemian Club. (Jekyll Island is too risky.)

Kathy, you are focusing on the physical process of removing Velaya. I am talking about the political process that preceded it whereby Velaya was relieved of office by the Congress and Supreme Court. I don't know how else to say it.

I don't understand the distinction you're making. The "political process" wasn't impeachment, either. Nothing that's happened in Honduras over the last few days resembles the process of impeachment in any meaningful way.

I'd like to a refer to one of the few articles that get it right: ...

That's not a news article; it's an opinion piece, clearly labeled as such. And I did link to it, in my newer post about Honduras, "Yes, It Is a Coup."

I don't understand the distinction you're making. The "political process" wasn't impeachment, either. Nothing that's happened in Honduras over the last few days resembles the process of impeachment in any meaningful way.

OK Kathy, you win. I don't know why I ever thought a political process involving a Congress removing a sitting president could be anything resembling impeachment.

I don't know why I ever thought a political process involving a Congress removing a sitting president could be anything resembling impeachment.

It's NOT a political process. That's the point. You're describing an end result, not a process. All the components of the process -- and I'm not going to repeat them -- are missing. If you want to say that a small group of individuals within the Honduran Congress collaborating with the Honduran military to remove a sitting president resembles an impeachment proceeding, okay, I guess I can see that point, but the resemblance is like a house that looks finished on the outside but there's nothing inside the walls.

I'm just as frustrated as you are, trust me. I don't understand why you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Kathy said "It's NOT a political process. That's the point. You're describing an end result, not a process. All the components of the process -- and I'm not going to repeat them -- are missing. If you want to say that a small group of individuals within the Honduran Congress collaborating with the Honduran military to remove a sitting president resembles an impeachment proceeding, okay, I guess I can see that point, but the resemblance is like a house that looks finished on the outside but there's nothing inside the walls."

I'm sorry but why do you insist it must be done the way we would do it? A bit cultural centric don't you think. In this case the Court removed the Prez and why is that worse than the congress here in the US impeaching a Pres? Different of course, not the same thing at all, but why is it a less legitimate process? The congress approved but it doesn't seem like it was necessary. They (the congress) appointed the next in line as new Pres as is their responsibility. It seems their actions had more of a legal basis then the Prez, which of course was why he was removed. I understand knee jerk responses and why initially people would call it a coup. I don't understand why when there is more evidence that validates the legality of the move you seem more hardened to the belief that it must be a coup. The rightness or morality is a personal measure but the legality, even if we think it;s bad, should be more objective. Even if we dislike the military arresting a Prez that doesn't make it illegal.

Kathy said "It's NOT a political process. That's the point."

You are right it WAS a legal process not political.

Ummmm, Ellis... I'm not "insisting" that anything "be done the way we would do it." I am disagreeing with DaGoat on his statement that the forcible removal of Honduras's president from office was more like an impeachment proceeding than a coup. That is an inapt analogy, for the reasons I have stated. As for why removing a leader from office by force with no legal or consistitutional process is "worse" than the American impeachment process for removing a president convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors," I submit to you that that is, apparently, in the context of this discussion, a philosophical question. I object to overthrowing elected leaders outside of a legal, democratic process. You do not -- at least not in this case.

I don't understand why when there is more evidence that validates the legality of the move you seem more hardened to the belief that it must be a coup.

I have not seen or read any evidence that "validates the legality" of what the Honduran military did. I have seen apologists for it try to characterize what is plainly a coup as a democratic legal process, but that doesn't make it one.

The rightness or morality is a personal measure but the legality, even if we think it;s bad, should be more objective. Even if we dislike the military arresting a Prez that doesn't make it illegal.

You're right. It's not our dislike of the military forcibly overthrowing under threat of violence (not arresting) a president and exiling him that makes it illegal. It's the fact that overthrowing a country's leader at gunpoint at 3 in the morning and sending him out of the country is illegal -- by definition. If there had been a legal process, then by definition things would not have happened that way.

Kathy said:

"If you want to say that a small group of individuals within the Honduran Congress collaborating with the Honduran military to remove a sitting president resembles an impeachment proceeding, okay, I guess I can see that point"

The congressional vote to remove him was UNANIMOUS. The court upheld the vote. The military was just following the congressional+court orders. Also, he was replaced with a member of his own political party because they have no vice presidency.

It seems you have a very weak platform here--somehow you are justifying one man retaining power when the entire rest of the governmental apparatus has determined he should be ousted.

Whether or not that constitutes your definition of "impeachment" is unbelievable pedantry. What is very clear is that the democratically elected congress and the proper legal courts convicted him of a crime against the constitution which made him unfit to serve.

Kathy -- I guess I don't understand your argument here.

"I object to overthrowing elected leaders outside of a legal, democratic process."

From everything I've read (further substantiated by a number of informed comments here) -- the removal of this president was done legally. He was operating outside the law. The congress voted his removal. The judicial branch was in agreement. While I agree that the process does not mirror our own, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

What is it, exactly, that you think should have been done differently that would make it *not* a coup for you?

If there had been a legal process, then by definition things would not have happened that way.

It seems there was a legal process, their supreme court, and a unanimous action by the legislation, so you quite frankly are wrong.

Their Constitution prescribes to the military the police power we in the US keep separate, so it seems you are saying you object to them following their procedures because you find them 'yucky'.

Brilliant analysis, Kathy, almost worthy of Shaun. Slowly but surely, you are sinking to his level of irrelevance.

I think facebook-1251429068 laid it out pretty clearly 10 hours ago. Given their sad history of wannabe dictators for life, the Hondurans wrote a constitution that specifically circumscribed exactly what Zalaya tried to do. The dictators for life in the region spoke out forcefully against his removal. Go figure! Obama/Clinton also quickly joined these dictators in protesting Zalaya's constitutionally-mandated removal from office. Too bad Obama/Clinton didn't speak out so quickly for the protesters in Iran who wanted a fair election.

Kathy said - "If there had been a legal process, then by definition things would not have happened that way."

So their court giving an arrest warrent was not a legal process? That is what happened.

It seems there was a legal process, their supreme court, and a unanimous action by the legislation, so you quite frankly are wrong.

So their legal process is to have no legal process. Or, more precisely, to give their military the right to circumvent all legal process.

Okay, if you are defining a process by which a country's military defies legal process aided by supporters within the legislative and judicial branches, as a legal process, then I can agree that Honduras's military followed a legal process.

However, then I would have to say that "legal process" defined in that manner is corrupt and meaningless.

Brilliant analysis, Kathy, almost worthy of Shaun. Slowly but surely, you are sinking to his level of irrelevance.

Shaun has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, AR. Snarkiness I can handle, since I engage in it myself, but leave Shaun's name and person out of it, okay?

So their court giving an arrest warrent was not a legal process? That is what happened.

An arrest warrant? Velaya was surrounded by heavily armed military at 3 o'clock in the morning. They disarmed his security guards, rousted him out of bed, forced him into a vehicle which took him to the airport where he was forced into a plane and flown to Costa Rica, the government of which country had agreed to suspend landing regulations to allow for Velaya's arrival.

That doesn't sound like any legal process I am familiar with. It sounds like a bloodless coup. The fact that said bloodless coup was "authorized" by Honduras's judicial and legislative branches (the latter after the fact) does not make it not a coup. In fact, that is pretty much the definition of a bloodless coup (as Larisa Alexandrovna pointed out).

From everything I've read (further substantiated by a number of informed comments here) -- the removal of this president was done legally. He was operating outside the law. The congress voted his removal. The judicial branch was in agreement. While I agree that the process does not mirror our own, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

Tell me how he was operating outside the law. He was trying to present a nonbinding referendum before the Honduran people which asked the latter to vote yes or no on the question of whether they wanted to amend the country's constitution to allow for an amendment that would allow Honduras's president to serve for more than one four-year term. How does that justify forcibly removing him from office in the middle of the night and ejecting him from the country, in the context of traditionally recognized-as-legitimate legal process? The other stuff that's been written about this -- for example, that Velaya led a mob to break into a warehouse where illegal ballots were stored -- has been presented without any sourcing that I have seen, and has not been confirmed in any kind of reliable way, again that I have seen.

You can tell me that the congress ordered his removal and the Supreme Court went along with it till the cows come home, and you still won't be telling me how that constitutes a legal process, if those bodies are not acting in accordance with democratic and written legal processes for how, when, where, and whether such actions can be taken. And quite frankly, I am not aware of ANY legitimate legal process anywhere on the planet that allows for the president or prime minister or leader of a country to have his residence broken into by the country's military, rousted out of bed and forced into a car and onto a plane -- not even having been allowed to get dressed -- and flown out of the country.

If you want to say that the Honduran military had the right to do this because it's their country and they can run it however they want to and it's none of our business, that's one thing. I would disagree that we have no business condemning it and trying to peacefully and non-coercively change it, but it is a defensible position.

But to say that Velaya's forcible removal from office and forced exile from his country was a legitimate, constitutional, democratic transfer of power and NOT a coup enforced by the threat of violence (bloodless coup) is something else entirely.

And quite frankly, Polimom, I find myself unable to understand your argument, or why you are making it.

It was not only legal, but warranted.

I'm glad that not only justice prevailed, but a show of force was made, which is a lesson not only to the bad element(s) within Honduras but outside it, first and foremost Baby Huey.

Kathy said "An arrest warrant? Velaya was surrounded by heavily armed military at 3 o'clock in the morning. They disarmed his security guards, rousted him out of bed, forced him into a vehicle which took him to the airport where he was forced into a plane and flown to Costa Rica, the government of which country had agreed to suspend landing regulations to allow for Velaya's arrival."

And you think people should only be arrested during office hours? That they should of timed it so there was the greatest possibility for resistance and violence?


Kathy said - "Tell me how he was operating outside the law. He was trying to present a nonbinding referendum before the Honduran people which asked the latter to vote yes or no on the question of whether they wanted to amend the country's constitution to allow for an amendment that would allow Honduras's president to serve for more than one four-year term. How does that justify forcibly removing him from office in the middle of the night and ejecting him from the country, in the context of traditionally recognized-as-legitimate legal process? "

Well basically the supreme court had decided that was a violation of their constitution. So either you ignore and make pointless a part of the Govt fully as important a the office of the Pres, or you agree that their courts are allow to decide their laws and constitution. Lets face it he was told it was a violation of their constitution and that he couldn't do what he wanted. He basically wanted a revolution to change the govt. He may be a great guy and all about the people but he knew what he was doing and it was illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary.

Also you keep complaining that the only info about breaking in and taking ballots was on a blog. Would an AP story before the arrest do?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la...

I know lots about Honduran politics. It was a crude form of impeachment because the Honduran Constitution does not have the procedure to remove an autocratic president who is bent on destroying the republican system as this President was. His problems began back in July 2007 when his ill-managed government ran out of money as they had spent the budget for the entire year. The international funding agencies refused to issue more debt as it was obvious that Honduras was far too deep into economic mismanagement. His only way out was to turn to Hugo Chavez which he did and worked hard to get acceptance from Chavez. This is not a leftist President, he is a megalomaniac who got drunk on Chavez' rhetoric. The military acted based on orders from the Supreme Court, Congress, the Attorney General and the Electoral Tribunal all of which are largely controlled by people from his own party. The truth is that if the world takes some time, go down to Honduras, we will all learn that far from being a hit on democracy this event saved Honduras precarious democracy.

And you think people should only be arrested during office hours? That they should of timed it so there was the greatest possibility for resistance and violence?

Well, that is an interesting perspective, Ellis. I must admit I never considered the possibility that by breaking into the presidential residence at 3 am, armed to the gills, forcing the elected leader of Honduras at gunpoint into a car and then onto an airplane to be flown out of the country, the military was trying to avoid resistance and violence. Although when you think about it, I suppose they were, since I don't imagine they particularly wanted resistance or violence. They just wanted to overthrow the elected president and force him to leave the country.

I've never considered such a scenario in the light of an "arrest," either -- since an "arrest" usually involves being taken to some sort of law enforcement facility, to be held until released on bond, or until a trial can be scheduled. When I think about ousting someone from office at gunpoint and ejecting him from the country, "arrest" is not the first word that comes to mind. Nor the second. "Coup" is actually the word that comes to mind.

AP article:

Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday's referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated. President Manuel Zelaya had led thousands of supporters to recover the material from an air force warehouse before it could be confiscated.

Under Honduran law, soldiers are normally responsible for distributing ballots ahead of elections, but the military leadership has opposed the vote. Zelaya has fired the military chief for refusing to support the referendum and vows to ignore a Supreme Court ruling ordering him reinstated.

"Leading thousands of supporters" is rather different from "he led a mob that broke into the military installation," which is how the WSJ editorial put it.

It sounds to me like the military was trying to prevent Zelaya -- who is, after all, the elected president of Honduras -- from going directly to the people via a nonbinding ballot initiative to find out if there was popular support for amending Honduras's constitution to allow Zelaya (and others after him, of course) to run for reelection. He was not taking the law into his own hands. He was trying to prevent the military from discarding thousands of electoral ballots which were to be used for a legal nonbinding referendum, and which the military had illegally confiscated to prevent the Honduran people from having the opportunity to express their will.

Zelaya was using a democratic process to see if Hondurans wanted a constitutional amendment permitting second terms.The military, obviously, did not want him to do that because second terms in office for democratically elected leaders posed a threat to their power. So they and their right-wing supporters in Congress and the court system colluded to stop him -- to prevent him from taking any steps to try to change the provision in the Constitution that did not allow for second terms.

Zelaya was not attempting to foment a revolution and he was not violating any constitutional provisions, because there is no democratic constitution anywhere in the world that forbids the citizens of a country from voting their desire to amend the constitution..A constitution that could not be amended, and that the citizens could not even say they wanted to be amended would not be a democratic constitution; it would be a tyrant's manifesto.

And HondurasContracho, you don't "save" democracy by using undemocratic, dictatorial means to express disagreement. Democracy is democracy. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a democracy that employs tyranny and extralegal actions to handle policy or run the government. Indeed, countries that use their militaries, or allow their militaries, to conduct affairs of state are historically not democracies at all. How could it be otherwise? The military ethos is not a democratic ethos. It's an entirely different way of doing things.

Your focus on just the Pres ignores the courts (who told the military they couldn't pass out the ballots), the Congress, the Election Board, hell anything that doesn't fit into your picture. The Pres was trying to overthrow the current Govt, or at least, seeing if the people wanted to over throw the current govt. The constitution cannot be changed so as to allow him to retain the president and still be the same constitution. It would not be amended it would have been replaced because it specifically states that it cannot under any circumstance be changed to allow a second term for Pres. Now is a revolution always a bad thing? Well we would be huge hypocrites if ,as proud Americans, we thought so. So you dislike their constitution an I assume you think it should be "overthrown". Of Course that would mean using extralegal actions and we know how you feel about that. Honestly depending on your viewpoint it may have been a good thing, but the one trying to overthrow the current system was the Prez, not the Military.

"He was trying to prevent the military from discarding thousands of electoral ballots which were to be used for a legal nonbinding referendum"

You mean he was trying to prevent the military from complying with the actual legal authority involved right, the supreme court, who ordered the military, as part of their regular job oversee voting, to take and destroy the ballots. Sounds like old Prez was using undemocratic, dictatorial means to express disagreement. As you stated that just shouldn't happen right? Hell you keep using the "Military" as a stick to hit people with but have failed to show where they ever acted on their own. Every time they acted it was in response to legal authority. They were given a warrant before the arrest. No one but you has indicated the military has made any unilateral actions. But maybe the view from the soapbox isn't good enough see the big picture.

This is the same Ole Right wing take over
Of the eighties. Gw bush style in Iraq. This is about money!!!! If the wealthy class allows Zelaya to give the people a vote or poll such as they do on AMERIcA!!!! with propositions!!!! Then they will not have 70% poverty and full control. No democracy in the world makes poll or vote on anything legal such as constitutional convention or propositions illegal!!! Except this right wing facist government. George Bush throwbacks themselves acting like communist. Today the new gov declared suspension of all civil rights and non warrant house searches, detentions and arrests without charges in court hmmm sounds a little COMmuNiST to me!!!!

Anyone who thinks this coup is about anything other than money is Gullible !!!and the people in Honduras for this illegal takeover are the same ones who worship the almighty dollar any one who has a few million of them such as Michelletti and the ones who own all the newspapers, media and news. Gee wonder whythey are so brainwashed in the country. When the whole world knows it was an illegal TakeOver by force from a jundgeand freinds of the rich guy who runs congress. To be sucessfull in Honduras you either have to agree with the wealthy, shut up if you don't or ban together. Some democracy!!!!

The supreme court cannot rule an opinion poll ILLEGAL!!!! And no democratic constitution can say a constitution cannot be changed if it is for the people by the people and that that proposition voting is illegal. These are the capitalist communist who have stragled the poor don't to do so!!!!

Umm.... They did. "for the people by the people" is the US not Honduras constitution. Here in the US we have "unalienable rights" which by definition means they can't be taken away which means you couldn't change our constitution to remove them. So yes you can put things in a constitution that the people can't change. Think about it, without being able to protect certain rights, the majority (race, religion, orientation) could do anything it wanted to the minority.

"These are the capitalist communist who have stragled the poor don't to do so!!!!"
I don't even know what that meant.

"Today the new gov declared suspension of all civil rights and non warrant house searches, detentions and arrests without charges in court hmmm sounds a little COMmuNiST to me!!!!"

Communism is in actuality an economic system which without a doubt Honduras is not. As far as it being a "right wing fascist government" you are aware that the leader of congress the man sworn in as interim president is of the same party as Zelaya. They are actually considered on the left. There was not a suspension of all civil rights just on assemblies at night (curfew), warrantless arrests for up to 24 hrs, and warrantless searches. The kind of thing that would happen anywhere in a state of emergency.

I am replying to the comment that the military was acting on "orders" well, orders to throw a president out in a Democracy by military is illegal and non Democratic. The supmreme court controls the judicial precedent, the congress controls the electoral and laws, the president is the"commander in cheif". You can not order something you are not authorized to ORDER! You cannot gang up on a elected official and becuse the politicians decide to vote that he goes he goes by military force. Where is that in the constitution? And lastly the one who claims he wrote the order- was the attorney general- idiot that he is does not even know his job moreless that what Z was doing was not illegal/ opinion poll not illegal/.he should have asked the country head prosecuted to charge him and bring him to a grand jury or trial. Sumpteme court cannot mix up wether something is constitutional or not with wether some one is a criminal or not without first trying both in a court of law. You cannot charge them, or not charge them, condemn them without jury and sentence them all in one swoop. Regardless if sC says vote was not legal which it was! Totally. And surly not criminal or enough to oust someone. This is democracy backwards an inept !!! Spuds like GB all over again. GREAT!!!

Communism is an economic system actually?????? Tell that to the ones shot and killed in Tenimen SquareChina!!!!!!!!

Sounds like GeorgeBush all over again. !!!

They created the emergency, it wasn't an emergecy first off.

As far as same party stuff what is even more disgusting is that this
Michelletti / espeghetti is really a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is
an imposter like the co conspirators, not liberal he is with green
party $$$$$ green fascist. It's a real old party let me tell you.!

That is notcomperable to Presidential terms. Inseliable means
unchangeable because given by God. Are u saying God wrote Honduran
Constitution. ??

And cont to do so!

"And quite frankly, Polimom, I find myself unable to understand your argument, or why you are making it."

Hunh? Kathy, you spend 4 paragraphs responding, and then say you don't understand my argument or why I'm making it?

Allow me to be frank in return: What I really wanted to respond to was your ridiculous assertion that the word "coup" is only used if the ousted individual is on the political right. I didn't do so, primarily because I find partisan worldviews to be generally incomprehensible and intellectually stultifying.

The thread itself went a different direction, and so I went with the flow. Otherwise, I'd have found myself unable to respond at all, because I also "find myself unable to understand your argument, or why you are making it".

I find narrow "left v. right" posts very frustrating.