Obama Administration Still Fails To Recognize Honduran Government
Guest Post By Leonidas
Leonidas is a frequent, right of center commenter on The Moderate Voice and has been invited as a Guest Voice.
**********
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released a new report on the ousting of former President Manuel Zelaya.
Among its findings:
Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.
However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct
violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.
So his removal from the Presidency was Constitutional, but his removal from the country was not.
Yet the Obama administration has still failed to recognize the government of Honduras as the rightful legal government of the Country, and the administration has cut aid by $30 million and threatened to cut another $200 million. This is about 2% of the Honduran GDP.
Furthermore the Washington Examiner reports:
Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its “coup” charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country’s independent judiciary. The U.S. won’t say why, but its clear the court’s sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country’s independent judiciary.
Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya’s violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their “human rights.”
But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama’s respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?
Its time the Obama administration correct its failed position, and show a respect for the Rule of Law in other nations and their independent judiciaries.
195 Responses to “Obama Administration Still Fails To Recognize Honduran Government”
Kathy:
I think you have the wrong D.E, Rodriguez.
That remark (“I still think that a marxist like Manuel P. does not deserve our sympathy”) is more likely to have come from a Jefferson Davis.
Dorian
“This, too, is the classic excuse given by tyrants and dictatorships the world over for persecuting and/or censoring the press. “They are advocating and inciting.”
So? As you said as long as it's true right?
Here even the most partisan press tries to appear professional. It is not the same everywhere. You would condemn the censorship without giving the full picture. I condemn the censorship while still giving the full picture.
LOL, Dorian, you are absolutely correct. I meant that for JD, but I clicked the wrong reply button. Second time I've done that. If I'm going to get confused about which is the correct Reply button, I really should start double-checking the line that tells me who I'm replying to!
I don't understand this reply at all. What do you mean, “as long as it's true”? First of all, it's not true — it's an excuse. That's what I wrote. Second, even if it *were* true, that does not justify shutting down the press. The bottom line is that the illegitimate Honduran govt that is in control right now is censoring any news coverage they find unsympathetic. That's what press censorship is about. I've never heard of censoring sympathetic coverage, have you?
Here even the most partisan press tries to appear professional. It is not the same everywhere. You would condemn the censorship without giving the full picture. I condemn the censorship while still giving the full picture.
Buffalo bagels, Ellis. One: You are not condemning the censorship. You are trying to justify it. Second: There is absolutely nothing about “being partisan” and “not trying to appear professional” that would explain or justify shutting down the press, here or in Honduras or anywhere else. Third: It's not even true that the press here is not partisan. What about Fox News? The Washington Times? The Washington Examiner? And on the liberal side, what about Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann? What about political bloggers? What about Talking Points Memo? What about National Review Online? I don't think anyone is in doubt about whether these media outlets are liberal or conservative, do you?
Leonidas:
My position has not shifted. The CRS report de-legitimizes the current government because it confirms that the military conducted a coup when it disobeyed the civilian authority that it answers to.
However, the CRS report is far from perfect, as that link and the other links (some in Spanish) explain. But I wonder if you even read the critiques of the CRS report — the CRS report being the one piece of documentation that you cling to as if it were the only evidence that matters. I will take your lack of response to these criticisms as an acquiescence to the claims that they make — in which case, I hope you will cease referring to the CSR report as evidence of anything.
I must say, I find it hilarious and embarrassing for you that you wish to take a stand on the intricacies of the legal analysis surrounding the coup d'etat but you aren't even able to read the most important analyses of it. This should be another sign to you that you should be listening & learning rather than publicly taking a stand on an issue that you can't even understand, in full.
I doubt that there are translations of these legal findings regarding the coup. Spanish is the second most-spoken language in the world, after Mandarin Chinese, and I don't think any of these distinguished professors, politicians or analysts feel the need to translate their work; if you care enough to take public positions on Latin American politics, you'll know Spanish and/or Portuguese.
I'm not sure why article #7 and article #9 are the only ones you care about — maybe you rolled a pair of dice? But #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 also explain in great depth the points I have been making, drawing on Honduran legal analysis. Specifically, they show that:
1) The Supreme Court acted illegitimately and outside of its jurisdiction,
2) The military did not democratically execute what the Supreme Court authorized them to do and that this means that they engaged in an illegal military coup d'etat,
3) The coup d'etat invalidates the actions of the current regime, which is a criminal entity that has committed treason against the Government of Honduras and the only way to rectify this situation is the immediate, unconditional return of President Zelaya to power,
4) The National Congress also acted outside of its jurisdiction and also without full participation, invalidating whatever it did after June 28,
4) The world is correct to not recognize this illegal, criminal regime which has violated international law and committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, for which they should be prosecuted.
You went on and on and on about how the legal analysis is the only thing that mattered. You went on and on about how the US should not intervene in Honduran affairs. And yet, the only argument you are left with is a flawed, contradictory report written by the US government (thus, your best evidence is invalidated and your insistence that the US not intervene in Honduran politics further invalidates it).
These analyses obliterate the CSR and the arguments you have presented. Unless you are able to provide a response to these reports, it appears you are out of steam and you have no argument left to offer.
I reiterate that you are unqualified to offer an educated opinion on this matter, you are unqualified to defend it and I see no sign of that changing. You don't even appear to be trying to adapt or evolve or learn anything new about the situation so as to adapt your argument. Your methodology appears to be:
1) Ignore and not respond to any argument which you either don't understand or damages the credibility of something you've said,
2) Repeat arguments that have already been refuted or discredited.
I cannot understand why this website, if it does intend to be a respected news magazine, would allow you to comment on this serious crisis which is the most urgent diplomatic crisis in the Americas in a long time.
EEllis, I am still waiting for your response to the evidence I presented to you about 19 women who have come forward to testify that gang rape is being used as a form of torture by the illegal coup regime, as well as a number of other external references I presented to you, which you seemed to have ignored because they contradicted your position.
“Ellis, I am still waiting for your response to the evidence I presented to you about 19 women who have come forward to testify that gang rape is being used as a form of torture by the illegal coup regime, as well as a number of other external references I presented to you, which you seemed to have ignored because they contradicted your position”
My response is they should investigate and prosecute every case regardless who participated. The reason I ignored the post is it wasn't pertinent to the discussion. You have in no way shown that there was a organized plot involved or anything but some evil people getting what they wanted in the disarray of the current situation. Basically it weakens your position when you spout unproven rhetoric and wild claims and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at that time by ignoring it. Kathy will believe anything you write because it fits into what she wants to believe. I think the world is a little more complicated and anyone who tries to explain how simple it is is either a liar or playing me for stupid.
“I don't understand this reply at all. What do you mean, “as long as it's true”? First of all, it's not true — it's an excuse. That's what I wrote. Second, even if it *were* true, that does not justify shutting down the press. The bottom line is that the illegitimate Honduran govt that is in control right now is censoring any news coverage they find unsympathetic. That's what press censorship is about. I've never heard of censoring sympathetic coverage, have you?”
It's not true because it's not what you believe right? Truth is they are not censoring all press they are being very specific about it. When the press become part of the story I'm not that concerned for their “special” rights. It's just not as simple as you want it to be. An yes I condemn censorship I also like reality.
The Arcadia Foundation would do well to begin its campaign against corruption by looking into its fonder, Robert Carmona-Borjas. This is the guy who was a key part of the internationally-recognized, illegal coup against democratically-elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. He served as an adviser and lawyer to Pedro Carmona, the civilian who was “installed” as the unelected president of Venezuela in THAT illegal coup.
Once democratic and constitutional order was restored in Venezuela, Pedro Carmona was rightly charged with treason and illegal usurpation of power. Instead of face his charges in a court of law, Carmona illegally escaped house arrest and fled to Colombia. He later showed up in Miami. During Carmona's short rule of Venezuela, he began the systematic persecution of political arrests, ordering the detention of key Chavez supporters and illegally holding them in custody.
The Arcadia Foundation's founder was right there along with Carmona, committing these crimes during the short-lived military dictatorship in Venezuela, until Chavez was re-instated. Fearing arrest for his crimes, he fled to the United States.
He then showed up in Honduras, to participate in this illegal coup d'etat. Except, since he collaborated with international war criminals, he doesn't have much credibility. He should be in jail in Venezuela.
This is exactly the kind of criminal that is involved in the Honduran coup d'etat.
I'm not a Marxist; as I've already explained, this random twitter account I used was the easiest way to begin posting here.
Of course, your chosen avatar is a racist supporter of slavery of black people. So, I don't see how you have any right to get all self-righteous about avatars.
The communists in the 80s were fighting brutal death squads like the contras, Batallion 3-16, and so on. These are the people who raped and killed 3 nuns and left them in a shallow grave. These are the people who gunned down Archibishop Oscar Romero as he was giving Mass.
Glad you are proud to be associated with the scum of the earth. It let's us all know exactly where you are coming from.
EEllis, I posted 12 links which show you the analysis of Honduran law which validates what both I & Kathy have been saying. Do you have any response to this mountain of evidence?
“EEllis, I posted 12 links which show you the analysis of Honduran law which validates what both I & Kathy have been saying. Do you have any response to this mountain of evidence?”
My response was the posting of the legal opinion from the law library. As for your links I didn't find them particularly compelling. Long on rhetoric week on any legal precedent, basically they read like “It's wrong because I said so”. Why would that convince me. And none of it effects that the Honduran Supreme Cort has given it's opinion that it was legal trumping some activist who managed to get some press in opposition papers. Either the rule of law has totally collapsed or it was legal, the half way thing just doesn't work for me. It's illogical.
It's not true because it's not what you believe right? Truth is they are not censoring all press they are being very specific about it.
Ellis, they're censoring the press outlets that are opposing the current government. I said before that censorship is not usually directed at friendly sources. Whether the unfriendly press sources are all or just some of the total number of press outlets, the purpose of the censorship is to suppress and punish any speech that does not accord with the current government's wishes.
When the press become part of the story I'm not that concerned for their “special” rights.
The press became “part of the story” because the current government made it that way by censoring, arresting, beating and clubbing, tear-gassing and torturing. It's the press's job to cover the news, Ellis. They became part of the story because the junta does not like the way they are covering the news and imposed censorship, which naturally became a story in and of itself.
Also, the rights of the press are not “special” rights. They are democratic rights, upheld and honored as one of the most basic elements of a democracy.
It's just not as simple as you want it to be. An yes I condemn censorship I also like reality.
Maybe it's not as complicated as you make it out to be. And if your support for the current Honduran government and its actions is grounded in a liking for reality, there are lots of other examples of reallity in the world today that you might want to declare your liking for. There's no shortage of reality in human affairs. Perhaps you can share with us your liking for Iranian demonstrators being beaten in the streets. That's reality. Or how about global terrorism? That's certainly reality. Do you like it? Or do you oppose it? Based on what you've said, I'd have to assume you like it.
Can you give me examples from the analyses presented by the Honduran Law Professors or the Honduran politicians that exemplify this “It's wrong because I said so” attitude you say are in there? Can you contrast that with examples from the Library of Congress report that makes it more “compelling”?
Having read those reports, which are in-depth and present specific examples and precedents from Honduran law (something the Library of Congress report fails to do), I don't see this difference at all. In fact, I found the in-depth legal reports from the Honduran law experts to be much more compelling than the Library of Congress report, which was very superficial and, in some cases, wrong.
Bloomberg UPDATE: U.S. Won’t Recognize Honduras Election Without End to Crisis
And still some here think they know more and have more information on the situation in Honduras than the United States Government, the Organization of American States, the United Nations… etc. et al.
The ignorant self assurance of the armchair quarterbacks never fails to amaze (or amuse).
“The press became “part of the story” because the current government made it that way by censoring, arresting, beating and clubbing, tear-gassing and torturing. It's the press's job to cover the news, Ellis. They became part of the story because the junta does not like the way they are covering the news and imposed censorship, which naturally became a story in and of itself.”
Sure and the fact that the owner of one of the opposition newspapers was involved in smuggling Zelaya in to the country was just them covering the story………. whatever make you happy
So dissent must be wrong?
EEllis – I had to give you a thumbs up for consistency… in the face of the fact that the entire hemisphere (OAS)… the entire world (UN)… and YOUR government… (agencies who all have much more information and specific details than you do) say you are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with dissent BUT continuing dissent when all the facts (except those of the perpetrators of the coup, Leo and you) tell a completely different story makes you look both willfully ignorance and stubbornly proud.
i had one written out to #10 and I lost the whole thing when the window closed. I just don't have the heart to start over. I'll just state that if we were looking at the same constitution then something is wrong. The articles had weak logic, contradictory claims, cited the wrong constitutional articles as a basis for statements, misstated what the constitutional articles were, ect. It really wasn't impressive. Mind you they were mostly articles written for laymen and in spanish, but I was not impressed even slightly.
All they have to do is show me proof. So far it “everyone else thinks so” (that would be you)
“I can't believe you're so stupid” (Kathy) and “My propaganda proves it conclusively”(Manuel)
So far I'm not buying. And all the facts don't say that. Some examples have been posted here and there are others. The opinion is not that one sided at all.
Unlike you, my marxist brother, my avitar is actually my given birth name. I wasn't named for the President of the Confederate States of America. I was named after my uncle.
“Glad you are proud to be associated with the scum of the earth. It let's us all know exactly where you are coming from.”
The Sandinistas were far more brutal than the Contras ever were. So don't even attempt to sit on a high horse there. Both sides used brutality. It's what happens in a civil-war. It was a classic example of cold-war tug-of-war that was happening world-wide, not only in Central America.
But today, instead of the Soviet Union pushing communism, you have the likes of Chavez taking over that role.
You can deny your marxism if you like. But your words say otherwise.
Don't cut yourself on that sickle, and don't drop the hammer on your feet.
Wow. Had one alllll written out, with wonderfully-crafted arguments that would have shown your superior understanding of Honduran law over people who have lived and breathed Honduran law for their entire lives.
… and then, your window just closed. The browser just closed your window on its own, huh?
What a terrible, and TOTALLY believable coincidence. Oh! If only that window hadn't closed! How much more enlightened this world would be!
Hahahaha. Really pathetic, ee.
Well, we've shown you facts … and when you've replied to them to show why they are wrong, your browser crashed, right? Hahahhahaha.
The Sandinistas brought democracy which still stands today to a country that had been ruled by ONE family for nearly 100 years. When they lost the elections in the that democracy, they peacefully stepped aside to let the winner in. In other words, they successfully fought and won democracy in for their people. And they continue to be a powerful force today, having been re-elected back into power after people realized what a mistake they made electing them out in the first place.
The contras, on the other hand, were a black ops mission, involved in cocaine trafficking to children in the United States, a STATED policy of terrorism against civilians, an embarrassment to our nation, the reason we lost Nicaragua v. United States in the international court AND the reason that we sold weapons to the same terrorists who had just finished holding our embassy workers hostage.
Anyone who supports the contras — either in word or in action by operating in that theater at that time — can rightfully consider themselves to be someone who was involved in spreading terror amongst innocent people.
Today, the contras are a disgrace that no one talks about and if you were a member, you certainly dont tell ANYONE because EVERYONE knows they were a disgusting terrorist army. Meanwhile, the Sandinistas continue to be a legitimate political party.
” Mind you they were mostly articles written for laymen and in spanish, but I was not impressed even slightly.”
Do you speak/read enough Spanish to be “not impressed, even slightly”?
You are correct in ONE thing. The Sandinistas remain a political party – a leftist political party. I'm sure you'd love to be a member (if you aren't already). The Nazi party remained after Hitler, and the Baath party remained after Saddam. So that point is moot. But nice propaganda speech nonetheless.
The Contras existed peacefully prior to the time when the Sandinistas outlawed them and started extermination and banishment. The Sandinistas forced them into the jungles, where they adopted guerrilla tactics. Yes, the Contras (after that time) became terroristic. I'm not making excuses for that. It was wrong. The US supported them (illegally) because of the Soviet support of the Sandinistas.
But it was also wrong for the Sandinistas doing the same EXACT thing when they came to power. ANY party that engages in that sort of activity illegitimizes their cause.
The Sandinistas brought communist democracy. “Be a member of our party or else”. Yes, later they “stepped aside” when REAL elections took place, but in the 80's and 90's they ruled with an iron fist forcing their brand of “democracy” onto the people. The Sandinistas stepped aside because they no longer had the support of the Soviet Union – since it collapsed. Which goes to show you:
Given a FREE choice, the people will choose true freedom and democracy every time.
I have to admit I giggled when I read this. Your entitled to your view, and I'm entitled to my humor on reading it.
I just hope we are both agreed that the only way this will be satisfactorily resolved is through fair democratic elections, and not via violence. I'd hate to see rabble rousers cause bloodshed instead of engage in a peaceful democratic process.
Don't be a child. I was tired and I'm sure I clicked it closed. To be honest it didn't take much in the way of analysis when they cite the wrong articles of the constitution and leave out obvious facts. I'll try to run thru it again if I have some time.
Yes
I could see you “giggling” in response to that. The problem with this discussion and your analysis is that you can't see the situation as reality. I imagine that you've lived a very sheltered, first-world life and your one experience with your church or whatever for charity work in Nicaragua doesn't count.
This prevents you from seeing this is as anything more than a little debate to score points on. It's why I originally said that this website doesn't qualify as “news,” since patently false news information is being published by people who don't care whether or not they ARE publishing news.
I'm sure you'd “hate to see” bloodshed but the fact remains that there are already has been bloodshood, and killings, and torture, and beatings and you don't seem to care about that. You just sit in front of your computer, far away, giggling and occasionally taking a break to stare at your full-size “300″ poster.
Sorry you didn't take this seriously enough; sorry to everyone else who has put work into this site.
P.S. Mr. Journalist, it is “you're entitled to your view” … in that case, “you're” stands for “you are” and then you form a contraction, “you're”. You've been doing it this whole time and it drives me nuts.
No? Are you saying that the entire world against an illegal military junta isn't one sided?.. it sure looks pretty one sided to me! But we see where you're coming from… What could all the world governments possibly know that you don't?
You just hang in there EEllis it's everyone else that's out of step, not you and they'll come around to your way of thinking someday. /snark
Sure and the fact that the owner of one of the opposition newspapers was involved in smuggling Zelaya in to the country was just them covering the story………. whatever make you happy
And your support for this claim is…. what?
Even if it were true, how and why does that justify shutting down an entire news organization?
Muy bueno. ¿Entonces podemos proseguir nuestra conversación en el español? Y nos puedes decir por qué ninguno de esos artículos en español te causó una buena impresión.
Gracias
1) Zelaya's actions as president were legal
Just keeps repeating that Zelaya's actions were legal. Ignores all attempts at a “Poll” except the last. Doesn't refer to the multiple interactions between Zelaya and the court, the military, the election authorities, ect. Basically substitutes the authors opinion for that of the Honduran Supreme Court. Wasn't particularly compelling.
2) Honduran army attorney confirms that overthrow of Zelaya was illegal
No the lawyer admits that shipping him out of the country was. Not the arrest or any action after putting him on the plane, just exiling him. And the mischaracterization hurts your case with me and makes you less believable when you distort the facts.
3) Numerous constitutional violations during the illegal coup d'etat in Honduras make it illegal and illegitimate
Claims art 293 requires Police to have arrested Zelaya's instead of military. While art 293 states the duties of police it doesn't state that they are required. The military in Honduras have been used for law enforcement so the claim is absurd on it's face. Makes various other claims including the illegality of exiling Zelaya. Well everyone agrees on that. The problem is even if the author was right he give no legal basis for these acts to invalidate the acts of the SC and Congress.
4) Nineteen members of Honduran Congress declare June 28 actions to be unconstitutional, making these actions an illegal coup d'etat
Great but 19 does not a quorum make so again not impressive. Couldn't get more info due to the link being down (most likely Govt censorship again) but just as well, why waste time with the obvious.
5) just 4 in english meaning there were only 11 cites not 12
6) Honduran Constitutional Lawyer & Professor of explains why the June 28 actions were unconstitutional and constituted a coup d'etat
Says the police should of been used but gives no legal cite preventing there use. That Zelaya was illegally exiled, so far everyone agrees with that. Says that since they (the congress) can't remove Zelaya they also cannot appoint a replacement. I reject the idea that the Congress has no authority to remove a president. To say that no matter what a president does, under no circumstances could the congress ever remove him? That's what would have to be believed for this opinion to matter.
7) Francisco Palacios Romeo, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Universidad de Zaragoza, explains why President Zelaya committed no crime (which would have come to light had the military not executed a coup d'etat)
This one gives a different argument which though I disagree is interesting. That because the constitution is unable to be altered by the citizens it is invalid. Then the author goes on about how Zelaya didn't violate it anyway ignoring the back and forth history like the others. The author castigates the military for violating the constitution by arresting their commander. Of course if the constitution is invalid then……
Interesting in theory but on investigation not the same. Micheletti did try and support a National Assembly that could change the constitution. The goal would of been to change term limits allowing the ten pres. to continue in office. Micheletti went the legal route while Zelaya went the populist one. They took different paths and just because one was unconstitutional does not mean they both are. 25 years and a more developed legal system as well as a stronger constitutional belief makes a difference.
9) Interview with constitutional law expert Palacios, in which he explains that the Supreme Court decision was merely political theater to provide a backdrop for the coup d'etat
Well the peppering of insults may make if enjoyable reading for some it does little for me. The main point is the Author know better than the corrupt SC what the law is and it cannot be wrong to consult the people and if it is then the law is invalid. No real reason to find this any more compelling that the others.
10) Legal analysis errors in the US Library of Congress Report on Honduran Coup
He doesn't like the source for the report
Thinks the reasoning was “made up”
Doesn't believe the congress can interpret the constitution.
Believe that even if they (the congress) could then they used the wrong procedure.
It seems the author is very upset with what he believes was the limited sourcing of opinion for the report. He never really digs into the report and it's cites rather stand backs and lobs bombs. While concerned with the single sourced individual the author ignores the 49 sourced documents in favor of condemning the one telephone interview.
11) A Judicial Analysis – Why the June 28 Actions Were an Illegal Coup d'Etat
Now this is a very good opinion. Very detailed and well written. My only fault, besides disagreement with the authority to impeach, is that when writing of the violation of art 239 and why Zelaya didn't violate it the author ignores everything but the last try to achieve a public vote. I believe that if Zelaya had stated there he may have been ok but the SC looked at the history and made their decision. Those like the author want to leave that history out. As I stated I feel that a govt must have the ability to remove a president. Call it impeach call it what you will but a govt without some ability to remove the executive is a flawed system. There is no implied system in Honduras so many say it can't be done. I would argue that it must be possible so the thing is to decide how. The SC and congress decided. But of all the cites this is by far the best.
12) A continuation of the “Judicial Analysis” Series, further details on the illegal and unconstitutional actions that all add up to a military coup d'etat
Reprints of previously used articles.
Basically one was a serious article. Other points were absurd on the face and really seemed written for propaganda value than to give true info or insight.
Mi espanol no es muy bueno y me lleva camino de largo a escribir. He dado mi impresión
What whitey can't speak spanish? I am from Texas. My spelling and grammar suck but they do in english also.
So will you join me in hoping for and calling for free and fair democratic elections to resolve the situation?
Manuel,
You mentioned Hugo Chavez, whats your take on his newest effort to control the media?
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=34453…
Is Leonidas actually trying to hijack his own thread?
Not really,
Just trying to see how Manuel feels about Chavez doing similar things to what he has deounced the Honduran government of doing. If not then it says that its not so much the actions as the political orientation of the people involved that is the motivation for his statements. I condemned the Honduran government for their recent crackdown, will he criticize Chavez for his? Also applies to others who have condemned either of those acts.
Another tidbit I picked up, that speaks of how divided the Hondurans themselves apparently are:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe…
Not bad at all, EEllis.
Much better than the Spanish (or other foreign languages) I have heard “gringos” say they are fluent at.
(And I mean “gringos” in a friendly way, as I “are one now”)
Dorian
EEllis – A nice try, certainly should fool most of the people on this message board, which I've really grown tired of.
Unfortunately, for each article, you pick one section to try and understand (and, even then, it doesn't seem like you do) and then you breeze through the rest of the argumentation offered in each analysis. For example, #7. There is a part which sort of talks about what you devote most of your response to — but it doesn't conclude in saying that the Constitution is, therefore, invalid.
In article #7, you respond to 6 major arguments, each with 2-6 supporting arguments, only by bothering to read (I think?) part of one of the supporting arguments, misunderstanding it, and then skipping over the rest of the article. But, all you really cared about is listing out each one and pretending like you were responding to it. Again, probably good enough for the people on this comment board but not for anyone but a sad attempt.
You give yourself away in your attempt to present a sentence in Spanish. I guess you don't realize the shortcomings of computer translators but they are, for the most part, unable to incorporate context and therefore will use synonyms that make absolutely no sense in a given sentence. Unless the person has SOME knowledge of the language, the sentence ends up sounding absurd — far from grammar that “sucks,” you are using words that are synonyms in English but not in Spanish.
For instance, “me lleva camino de largo a escribir” … haha. Did you walk on a long path to write?
Anyway, I've wasted far too much time on this website. Unfortunately, there are too many trolls that occupy this site for it ever to be successful. To the owners of this site, you need to find ways to attract people who will actually contribute worthwhile content and engage in worthwhile discussions. If you don't do that, you'll end up on the garbage heap of a million websites like this that never garnered enough traffic to make the effort worthwhile. You need people who have a sincere interest in sophisticated discussion, or, as I put it before, people who already know enough to offer an informed opinion and, if they haven't, then they should be seeking a conclusion based on evidence instead of seeking and manipulating evidence to support a conclusion.
I don't believe this site belongs in Google News but don't worry — I'm not about to go running off to register a complaint. That wouldn't work anyway. But, I do know how it does work.
Leonidas, you have a lot of growing up to do. Owners of this site, nixing Leonidas as a featured writer would be a good first step.
To Kathy, you seem like a good person who is interested in actually engaging in interesting discussion. I would suggest NarcoNews.com as a good place to get information and also to engage in worthwhile discussions about Latin America. I have no idea why you are wasting your time here.
Honestly I speak mainly “kitchen” spanish and really butcher the language but with a little time and usualy a dictionary my reading is slightly better. Less pressure and my “ear” doesn't need to be as good.
Well let me go back into my distant past some 35 years for the proper response to you.
It starts with “Stick and stones may break my bones…..” I think you know the rest.
This is an article by Sen. DeMint, NYT, 10/10/09:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487…