Honduran Coup Leads to Predictable Violence

If you're ever looking for more info on the coup, here's a pretty good article: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showli...

Sincerely,
MediaMentions

You ought to double check your facts. It was Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro that led coups... Zelaya's political party maintains power in Honduras. Zelaya was forcing an illegal referendum that would have allowed him to stay in power by ending term limits. It was Zelaya's own political party that threw him out of power.

The photos that we are seeing are staged, showing large crowds, but in truth they are small crowds very close to each other to make the crowds look bigger than they actually are.

Well since the party considered "Left", Zelaya's own, is the party in "power" the last paragraph seems a little loaded. You can clearly see firing into the ground, not the crowd, several times. People being hit with rubber bullets and tear gas being fired while still throwing rocks, I'm sorry what was it you expected to see?

They started tearing up and passing trough a fence. When warring shots were fired the crowd clearly moved back creating a space between those at the fence and the rest of the crowd enabling anyone who wanted to leave to be able to. Then you saw tear gas being fired while the solders were clearly having rocks thrown at them. Get a grip Kathy. This would of happened any country any where if the "protesters" acted the same way. It really has no real effect on the legitimacy, or lack, of the "political transition". I have no doubt that in some circles Zelaya is enormously popular. He did win the election and all his speeches are appeals to the poor of which Honduras is overburdened. But peaceful protests don't pull down fences and throw rocks, and who really thinks the military started the fires?.

I have to wonder where all of the stout defenders of the Iranian protesters are now, as supporters of the democratically elected and then ousted president are fired upon? Oh, wait.. that's right. We don't like the guy getting pushed out in the coup here. Check.

Situational democracy in action. Gotta love it.

Jazz I think the correct approach to Honduras is the same as Iran - denounce the violence otherwise stay out of it and don't take sides.

"You ought to double check your facts."

Kathy's mind was made up already.

She is no doubt also a defender of:

"[... Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro [...]"

LOL @ "right wing revolutionaries"

Since when does upholding their Constitution make them "revolutionaries' ?

As someone said on another forum:

" When a Supreme Court asks the military to remove a president who continues to act unlawfully, it isn't a military coup. When a legislative body replaces the deposed president with the next in line according to a country's laws, it isn't a military coup. When the military seeks to restore peace by attacking the thugs supporting the deposed president, it isn't a military coup."

I believe the Honduran Congress voted 125-3 to get rid of Zelaya, including all but 3 of his own party. Thats pretty mindboggling. Imaging the degree of corruption it would take for all but 3 democrats to vote to impeach Obama... thats about 96% of his own party voting to kick him out and about 98% of the entire Congress....


How can anyone stand behind Zelaya is also mindboggling.

good article in the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683595220397...

I was supportive of Obama's handling of the Iranian protests, but right now Obama is failing miserably on the Honduran issue.

I will agree with one thing in the origional post, Violence was indeed predictable, it always is when your dealing with Hugo Chavez goons.

"I was supportive of Obama's handling of the Iranian protests, but right now Obama is failing miserably on the Honduran issue."

I hope it isn't because the Dems in Washington have awful leftist leanings and sympathy in that light, as we saw with Aristide in the Clinton years.


http://www.wehaitians.com/haitians%20are%20not%...

http://www.wehaitians.com/aristide%20ghost%20st...

http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/580

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/wpf32...

Situational democracy in action. Gotta love it.

JAZZ! You wrote something I agree with! :-)

Jazz I think the correct approach to Honduras is the same as Iran - denounce the violence otherwise stay out of it and don't take sides.

Which is precisely what Pres.Obama has done.

125-3 hmmm

Lets play make believe for a minute.


Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel, Dennis Kucinich, and Edward Kennedy (who was roused from his hospital bed to cast his vote) went against the impeachment proceedings of President Barack Obama which enjoyed overwhelming bilateral support after President Obama attempted to force through an executive order allowing him a third term which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) remarked "This is a sad day, but the Constitution must be upheld. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added, "Although this situation was caused by the Republican Party and their reasonless opposition to everything President Obama tried to do, he still has to go. Vice President Joe Biden will be confirmed as President as per the Constitional sucession. Biden made a brief comment, "We must move forward, and I will uphold the duties of the office to the best of my ability. Its all about that 10 letter word the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N." Biden, when asked by a reporter if he was happy to be the next President responded ""Give me a f**king break."" It was uncertain if Biden realized there was an open microphone nearby.

Yes that is what it would resemble.

"Which is precisely what Pres.Obama has done"

-- ummm No.

He called their new leadership illegal. It wasn't, they followed their own Constitution.

Speaking of crowds of demonstrators here is one:

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_grap...

People marching against the return of Zelaya

Gotta love that CNN - Chavez News Network sign being held on the right side.

He wasn't very popular, only 25% approval.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/president_...

also of interest.

http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2007/10/19/journal...

"Gotta love that CNN - Chavez News Network sign being held on the right side."

Clinton News Network of old -- they're still Clearly Not Neutral.

Now that Obama and the Dems are in charge in Washington, why doesn't Peter Arnett return to CNN and why doesn't Dan Rather return to CBS? It's time to give Olbermann some farther-left-than-left competition.

Which is precisely what Pres.Obama has done.

Kathy this is the quote from Obama, how can you portray this as not taking sides?:

`We believe that the coup was not legal, and that president Zelaya remains the president of Honduras.''

Have to have some pretty think Hope and Change lenses on those sunglasses to see that as not taking sides.

"We believe that the coup was not legal, and that president Zelaya remains the president of Honduras.''

Sorry, Kathy, but we can't repeat the Haitian adventure now, with a threat to invade to restore Zelaya as we did with Aristide, as we are preoccupied at this time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe that's why Obama is not talking about or hinting at doing anything more.

Fortunately for the USA and Americans as well as Honduras and Hondurans...

He called their new leadership illegal. It wasn't, they followed their own Constitution.

But they didn't, Leonidas. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Honduran Constitution that allows the courts and the legislature to forcibly remove a legitimately elected president from office and fly him out of the country. And by "forcibly" I mean "at gunpoint," as opposed to legally removing someone from office after a legally prescribed process has taken place.

That is what Obama was condemning -- the violence and the clear illegality of the coup (because by definition coups are *always* illegal). That is not the same thing as taking the side of Zelaya and his supporters against Micheletti and the military -- unless you are assuming that saying nothing when a democratically elected leader is violently overthrown is "not taking sides" only when the democratically elected leader can be associated with left-wing politics.

Kathy this is the quote from Obama, how can you portray this as not taking sides?:

`We believe that the coup was not legal, and that president Zelaya remains the president of Honduras.''

Because coups are *not* legal, and because Zelaya *is* the president of Honduras. He was violently overthrown and exiled from his own country! Honduras's own people elected him to his office. How can it possibly be "legal" for the Honduran military to void the results of a legitimate, legal, democratic election? And how does the collusion of two branches of the Honduran government in this illegality make it legal?

Let me put this another way. Zelaya's opponents say he was trying to abolish presidential term limits and make himself president for life. They also say that even just calling for a referendum so Hondurans can say if they want to discuss changing the constitutional ban on re-election is a violation of the Constitution. But these things are not *facts,* DaGoat; they are *opinions.* They are accusations, charges, allegations -- whatever word you want to use. But they cannot be called "facts" when they have not been submitted to a legal process and shown, via that legal process, to be true, and to be applicable to the actions of Pres. Zelaya.

If, in response to Ahmadinejad's reelection (which may actually have been real, but just the massiveness of the win was fraudulent) Mousavi and his supporters had forced their way into the presidential palace, forced Ahmadinejad out of bed and into a car and then taken to the airport and flown out of the country, would it be taking sides for Obama to condemn that?

Kathy you've done a great job of saying why Obama has taken the side of Zalaya, while at the same time saying he hasn't taken sides. I guess we just have a basic disagreement on the meaning of taking sides.

Obama has taken a side - the side of Castro, Chavez and Ortega, and against the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress.

Not that there is anything to be read into that, and the company Obama keeps, mind you.

Kathy you've done a great job of saying why Obama has taken the side of Zalaya, while at the same time saying he hasn't taken sides. I guess we just have a basic disagreement on the meaning of taking sides.

I don't see how I've done that, but I do agree with your second sentence.

"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."

-- Article 239 of Honduras's Constitution

http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2....
Zelaya did the crime now he is paying the time.

Kathy said "as opposed to legally removing someone from office after a legally prescribed process has taken place."

All right Kathy you keep saying that crap so back it up. What is the "legally prescribed process" in Honduras for doing so?

Kathy said "Zelaya's opponents say"
"They also say that even just calling for a referendum so Hondurans can say if they want to discuss changing the constitutional ban on re-election is a violation of the Constitution."
"these things are not *facts,* DaGoat; they are *opinions.* They are accusations, charges, allegations -- whatever word you want to use. But they cannot be called "facts" when they have not been submitted to a legal process and shown, via that legal process, to be true, and to be applicable to the actions of Pres. Zelaya."


Of course the "fact" that it was the Honduran Supreme Court's "opinions, accusations, charges, allegations" is always ignored. That in any legal system the finding of such a court becomes legal "FACT" is never noticed. References to the military removing Zelaya proliferate without any hint of the warrant they were serving. The unbridled arrogance of some liberals that they believe they understand the Honduran Constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court and obviously must be more qualified to interpret it as they cavalierly toss aside their( the Honduran Supreme Court) opinion without any mention of them by name. What, only the little brown people who agree with you, or fit your world view, are listened to?

EEllis I think that really is the crux of the issue. If Zelaya's removal from office was legal under Honduran law the whole argument about a coup falls apart. As far as I can tell it was legal. The Honduran government has the right to remove their president under certain conditions, just as the US does.

The left is focusing on the use of the military implying that any use of the military automatically means there was a coup. As the Honduran Supreme Court has said though the military was used mainly to serve the warrant, and was not unilaterally removing Zelaya from office. I will add I think the actions of the military and placing Zalaya in exile were excessive but those are secondary issues.

Whether Zelaya is a leftist also is not relevant to whether his removal was legal under Honduran law. This is where I disagree with AustinRoth - the comparisons to Castro and others are interesting but not relevant.

Let me repeat this point of mine. Note the word immediately. The Supreme Court followed the law and ordered the immediate removal of Zelaya, when he refused to listen to the warnings. They upheld th law as written in Article 239 of their Constitution.

"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."

-- Article 239 of Honduras's Constitution

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

What is the "legally prescribed process" in Honduras for doing so?

Usually, a legally prescribed process ("a" is the word I used, not "the," which actually makes a meaningful difference to what I wrote) involves arrest and/or formal notification of charges filed against one; after which there is a trial or some kind of court proceeding in which both sides are represented by attorneys, evidence is presented, and the defendent is given an opportunity to confront witnesses, present evidence, etc.; after which there is a verdict, either by jury or by a judge or panel of judges; and, if the verdict is guilty, a sentencing. A legally prescribed process includes guidelines for sentencing, so that the court cannot simply impose any sentence it wishes -- and I am not aware of any legal, democratic process in the world by which a government official who was fairly and legitimately elected to office can be summarily removed from office, at gunpoint, with none of the legal proceedings I just enumerated, and exiled from his or her country, permanently, just on the say-so of the country's legislature, court, and/or military.

The Supreme Court followed the law and ordered the immediate removal of Zelaya, when he refused to listen to the warnings. They upheld th law as written in Article 239 of their Constitution.

But they did not follow any legal process for PROVING that Zelaya had committed the constitutional violations they say he committed.

It does not get any clearer than this, folks.

The Honduran government has the right to remove their president under certain conditions, just as the US does.

After PROVING, via the use of legally prescribed proceedings, that those conditions have been met.

Can I make it any clearer?

Kathy said"After PROVING, via the use of legally prescribed proceedings, that those conditions have been met.

Can I make it any clearer?"

Yes, what are those proceedings.

What is their legal process not one you have made up to satisfy your standards?

Yes, what are those proceedings.
What is their legal process not one you have made up to satisfy your standards?

Ellis, I am not adequate to the task of teaching you about the last 800 years of legal and political history that you obviously don't know.

Seriously. I don't know what else I can say. I explained what I meant by legal proceedings and you obviously don't understand what I wrote because you asked the question again.

Truly, Ellis, there is nothing more I can say to explain to you what legal proceedings are. I'm sorry.

Yes, what are those proceedings.

You must have asked a good question EEllis since Kathy has unleashed the legendary "you are so ignorant there's no possible way I can explain this to you" defense. Few have felt it's wrath and lived to tell the tale.

I understand what a legal proceeding is. What I don't understand is why the Honduran Supreme Court issueing a finding that Zelaya violated the constitution is, in your opinion, not a valid legal process.

Is it just me? There are different "proceedings" for different things. Kathy seems to think there should be a criminal trial(closest I can think of to her description) when even in the US the "legal proceedings" to impeach are different. It seems to me if you are demanding the proper "proceedings" must occur the asking for the exact and precise "proceedings" you want is a valid and important question as well as the legal basis for those proceedings of course. The situation is obviously ambiguous with little precedent, not surprising in a constitution only 29 years old. It appears that the Legislature is the body that would impeach officials but that there may not be a need to impeach because of the violation of the constitution not requiring such impeachment in the specific case of attempting to change term limits. If that is so it seems possible that a finding of the supreme court may be ground for removal of the Pres. That some feel that there should be more of a "Process" does not make automatically less valid or legal. In addition the fact that laws were broken (the exile of Zelaya, his not being present during the impeachment vote if that is what it was) would not automaticly make the process invalid. In the US evidence seized during a illegal search is excluded from trial. in the UK the evidence would be included but the officer who sized the evidence could face action. The courts could say that the "proceedings" should of been different but with a 120 and some to 3 vote it would of had no possible change in outcome so is valid. That decision would mirror legal decisions in this country as well as others.

The situation is obviously ambiguous with little precedent, not surprising in a constitution only 29 years old.

I think you hit the nail on the head. For the past day I've been asking to see the portion of the Honduran Constitution pertaining to impeachment, now tonight it looks like there ISN'T a relevant portion of the constitution. It is not clear what the law is in this instance, so all the clamoring for the rule of law to be followed is kind of futile.

What IS pretty clear is what the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court thought the rule of law was in their own country. To me they are in the best position to make that judgment.

What I don't understand is why the Honduran Supreme Court issueing a finding that Zelaya violated the constitution is, in your opinion, not a valid legal process.

For the same reason it would not be a legal process if the U.S. Supreme Court "issued a finding" that Pres. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution by torturing people and spying on Americans without probable cause or a search warrant.