To quote from the conclusions of that report:

V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?
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.

Only the Left and Left-sympathizers refer to it as a coup. Of course, that is all that exists to the Left, their opinions, especially when the facts turn out to be 'an inconvenient truth'.

Let's keep up the good fight for our respective perspectives though. (wow, “respective perspectives” – what a GREAT band name!)

In any other govt office they could remove citizenship and bar him from any position for 10 years. That's from memory only so I may be off a little. Manny of the things he has done may be criminal also, but the violation of the constitution by attempting to retain power doesn't come with a criminal charge.

I can't blame her, since the NYT keeps referring to it as a “coup”. Perhaps they and others set her opinion on this event and she ignores, as they did, the only official U.S report on the matter.

Correct. This is otherwise known as 'The Big Lie'. Say it loud enough, often enough, and with enough conviction, and it becomes accepted as fact by most in the face all contrary evidence.

Perhaps you are right. It may very well be the case that your meaning is clear and I simply cannot parse that clear meaning. In which case, I think it would make sense for me to stop trying to do so. I apologize for letting the argument drag on so long.

Morality- as well as intelligence-free is standard. I'm surprised and disappointed that the Left didn't just say that Chavez should be in charge of all of Latin America and supervise binding arbitration of “events” and “controversies” such as this in the region.

There is nothing in that statement that anyone could somehow read to mean 'they did not have the authority to remove him from office', or that a 'settlement' that puts him back in office was needed.

The confusion is yours, or rather the desire to read into what I said your point of view rather than mine, which I had clearly stated, and my condescending tone towards your bias and inability to successfully parse clear-meaning words was and is justified.

Can they charge Zelaya with a crime? I was following the exchange between you and Austin Roth, and that came to me. Is his removal from the presidency the only punishment for breaking the law, or can he also be charged with something under Honduran law?