The media likes to tell us that poor Mel was just a left leaning socialist and he did great things for the poor in Honduras…like raising the minimum wage. Mel has done nothing for the poor…he talks a great game but the country has no enforcement capability for programs like minimum wage. No one wants to talk about how this humble farmer acquired his money and the scandals he found himself in with the telecommunications companies or the electricity supply for the country. Yeap the good old farmer found ways to drive contracts to suppliers incapable of meeting the requirements of the nations….and yes he was paid for his assistance and yes this fact.

No one wants to talk about the airplanes flying into Honduras from Venezuala, under Honduran Presidential order not be checked by Honduran customs or immigration. No one wants to talk about a President who formed a mob to go and break into an army facility.

Many of the people on these forums have rose colored glasses on and can't begin to understand the reality behind the actions in Honduras. If you think Chavez is not behind this…think again. If you think Ortega and Castro have only just decided to make comments…think again. If you think the leaders of Argentina and Ecuador are only just trying to lend support think again. And for all of those out there that believe having all these folks singing kumbayuh together is good for North America….think again!

Congratulations to the people of Honduras….it is unfortunate the world won't stand with you!

It can't be printed enough for anyone with sense to believe that. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it so. He both violated law and the constitution. He was removed for violation of the Constitution and was given the choice of resigning and leaving or staying to be charged. He resigned (and yes I know there are differences in the descriptions in the events but so far I have the most faith in this one) and went to Costa Rica.

The Congress in Honduras also passed a law making the referendum illegal. A separate new law just for this referendum. Saying that it wasn't broken is like that robbing a bank is only breaking the law after you get away with the money.

As for your link let me just say if we have any respect for other countries at all then I would have to put the opinion of the supreme court of that country ahead of the opinion of a non lawyer from another country with no particular constitutional knowledge of that country. Miranda and Right to privacy are constitutional requirements in the US. Some hack reading our constitution and saying that there is no basis for either does not trump our supreme court.

Here is a translation of the relevant sections of the Honduran Constitution:

Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)

Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:

5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;

Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)

Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:

3) Be in possession of a citizen's legal rights

From http://www.redcounty.com/memo-president-obama-r...
(yes I know people will hate the origin but lets try to focus on the facts)

The real problem is there wasn't/isn't a clear cut way for the president to be removed. Here in the US it only takes the legislature to remove a president. Why is it so horrible that in Honduras the courts did it?

People also keep hitting on the military removing the pres. Since the military at no time took control of the govt, was under orders of civilian authorities, and never acted unilaterally, the military never had control of the country.

Do I think it was a bad idea? Well I think it would of been better to hold him for trial but I don't live there and the fear of possible unrest may have disturbed officials into making an unwise choice. But then again we don't know what would of happened, maybe it would of been an even worse choice. It seems to have some legal basis, certainly enough that I don't feel I could contradict the Supreme Court of another country on their own constitution. I think that if they get a chance they should address the issue and amend their constitution with a system to better handle things. If they get a chance.

In the end if the election still happens in Nov then I have a hard time seeing the big problem. Z couldn't of run, the constitution will of survived, and Democracy will continue and there would be little or no justification for continued sanctions or other actions.
(I have to say that the arrogance of some people in making statements about the laws and constitution of Honduras is astounding and unnerving. Anyone studying constitutional law knows our US constitution and the constitution decisions is not something some internet hack with 10 min and google translates can make accurate and honest blanket statements. So why do we do it to Honduras?)

Good for Honduras, and its no surprise that an administration which is disregarding aspects of its own Constitution would condemn another government that is enforcing its own.

President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006.  According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006.  That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. 

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition.  However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010.  In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress.

Umm, dude, what have you have been smoking? That never happened.

The ONLY thing I can see that is unlawful was throwing Zelaya out of the country. They would have been better just keeping him under house arrest while they impeached him, which he certainly deserved.

I'm in agreement with wkdewey above. Also, it can't be pointed out enough that Zelaya broke no laws, but the coup certainly did. What Zelaya did was legal, as explained here: http://counterpunch.com/thorensen07012009.html If it were illegal, Zelaya could have been tried. Instead, he was removed under court order, without trial. This is what some in the US think we should support?

The government also took at least two television stations off the air and interrupted the broadcasts of others.

At least 10 soldiers, most with rifles drawn, arrived at the hotel where journalists from The Associated Press and the Venezuela-based television network Telesur were staying and unplugged their editing equipment in an apparent attempt to stop their coverage of protests in support of deposed President Manuel Zelaya.

Telesur said military officers also threatened another of its journalists, warning that others would be detained if the network continued to transmit images of protests in support of Zelaya, who was forced into exile on Sunday.

Soldiers also shut down Channel 8, the official broadcaster of the Zelaya government, and another television station sympathetic to his administration in the capital. Honduran reporters also said at least one Tegucigalpa radio station has been forced off the air.

When Zelaya was first arrested Sunday morning, power was cut throughout the capital and all radio and television stations went off the air or simply played traditional “marimba” music. Most networks resumed transmission a few hours later, but they have provided little coverage of the protests outside the military-occupied presidential palace.

The media apparently have been acting on orders from the government, though it is unclear who has been giving them. Soldiers have been posted around some television and radio stations and around the national power and phone companies.

Telesur and CNN en Espanol, the Spanish-language network of CNN, have broadcast news of the protests in Hondurans via cable television, but those transmissions have been interrupted intermittently.

All the hand wringing over Chavez shows a serious case of double standards. He hasn't murdered and tortured his opponents, and the opposition is still legal. Although there is not fair competition, the majority of people in Venezuela did want him to be president. He does not deserve to lumped in the same category as Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein. He's not even as bad as the governments of Egypt and Jordan, to name a couple autocratic US allies.