and now.... Honduras.

[The Larch]

No due process??  Excuse me?  Was there something improper about the way in which the Honduran Supreme Court reached its decision?  Are there some details of Honduran constitutional law you're privvy to and would like to share?

I am not familiar with the tortured legalisms being used sophistically to explain why the army had to bundle him out of the country.  Perhaps you can share them as well, although as I already indicated I don't think I would be inclined to accept them.  If you still have time after that maybe you can explain why the correct redress for an improper bundling is to reinstate a person, one judged by the highest court in the land as disqualified from holding public office for ten years, in the office of president.

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

[Maximus]

According to the original post in this thread, the military is responsible for elections in Honduras. Presumably they are just preparing for a new election.

[grumbler]

No due process??  Excuse me?  Was there something improper about the way in which the Honduran Supreme Court reached its decision?  Are there some details of Honduran constitutional law you're privvy to and would like to share?

Due process?  Excuse me?  Was there anything proper in the Army's decision to disobey the Honduran Supreme Court and fail to execute the arrest order?  Are there some details of the Honduran constitutional law you're privy to and would like to share?

I am not familiar with the tortured legalisms being used sophistically to explain why the army had to bundle him out of the country.  Perhaps you can share them as well, although as I already indicated I don't think I would be inclined to accept them.  If you still have time after that maybe you can explain why the correct redress for an improper bundling is to reinstate a person, one judged by the highest court in the land as disqualified from holding public office for ten years, in the office of president.

I am not familiar, either, with the tortured legalisms that you use to justify the contention that Zelaya was given "due process" and await these legalisms with some interest.  If you still have time after that maybe you can explain why the correct redress for an improper removal from the country is not to undo the improper actions and reinstate a person.  After that, you can explain how the Honduran Supreme Court could judge Zemalaya as "disqualified from holding public office for ten years, in the office of president" without even hearing from the guy, let alone offering him a formal chance to face the charges (which have to be brought by the legislature, under the Honduran Constitution).

[grumbler]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

This is my understanding, as well.  The Supreme Court could (and did) suspend him for acting contrary to the Constitution, but could not and did not impeach, try, and remove him.  The army just took a constitutional shortcut and thought they would eliminate the problem without the need for all that due process and justice shit.

We call those kinds of military actions "military coups d'etat."  I don't think post-hoc rationalizations or even retroactive legislation can change that.

[Admiral Yi]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

That would change my perception of the situation if it's correct.

[The Larch]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

That would change my perception of the situation if it's correct.

It's hardly breaking news, that was known since nearly the beginning. You only hear about it now?

[KRonn]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

That would change my perception of the situation if it's correct.

It's hardly breaking news, that was known since nearly the beginning. You only hear about it now?

Don't forget, some of us live in the USA. The news media is often short on substance and longer on giltz and embellishment of stories.   

[Admiral Yi]

It's hardly breaking news, that was known since nearly the beginning. You only hear about it now?

Yup.

[The Minsky Moment]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

Exactly.

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant.  The Army decided not only to execute the warrant, but then sua sponte to impose punishment and sanction.

[Valmy]

Exactly.

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant.  The Army decided not only to execute the warrant, but then sua sponte to impose punishment and sanction.

Ok then.  I guess this was a coup then.

Wow did this situation ever get misrepresented to me.  I mean they guy probably would have been stripped of the Presidency anyway but...

[alfred russel]

IIRC, the thing is that the Supreme Court didn't declare him guilty of anything and sentenced him to exile (which is illegal under Honduran law), they called him to court to be judged and sent the army to fetch him (something I'm not really sure if it's of their competence). At some point in the process the army decided (or was ordered) that it was better to send him out of the country. In fact the guy that is offering resistance now to Zelaya's return is General Vázquez, the head of the Honduran armed forces.

Exactly.

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant.  The Army decided not only to execute the warrant, but then sua sponte to impose punishment and sanction.

I can't believe there is a multi hundred post thread on Honduras. I read the Wiki entry on this today, which is my only source of knowledge on the subject. Wikipedia did say that after the president was exiled, the supreme court issued a statement of support (link from Wiki):

"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/5677026/Honduras-supreme-court-ordered-army-coup.html

and the wiki entry reads:

The National Congress was called into an extraordinary session, where not all legislators were notified or present, and presented with what was claimed to have been Zelaya's resignation letter, dated 25 June.[111] Zelaya has said he did not write the letter. Congress voted to remove Zelaya for "manifest irregular conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of law." By a show of hands, the National Congress – the majority of whom belonged to Zelaya's own Liberal party[112] – appointed the President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's party, to be president to succeed Zelaya.[113]


A clash between pro-Zelaya protesters and the Honduran military[edit] Legality
The interim government, including the National Congress and Supreme Court maintain Zelaya was replaced constitutionally. Arguments that Zelaya's removal was illegal have been advanced by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law[114][115][116] and others.[117] Acting Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said forcing deposed President Manuel Zelaya to leave the country, instead of arresting him, was a mistake.[1][110][118]

If wiki is presenting this fairly, it sounds like there is enough gray to make me not care one way or the other.

[grumbler]

I can't believe there is a multi hundred post thread on Honduras.

Is it multi-hundreds of posts now?

I am frankly greatly amused by the fact that that the arguments JR made over several days were rejected by Yi and others, and then when the exact same arguments were reiterated by The Larch, everyone is all "this is the first I have heard of this!" 

None of this is really "sophistically" difficult.  The Honduran Army is simply more like some languish posters than either Honduras or Languish should be comfortable with. 

[The Minsky Moment]

and the wiki entry reads:

The National Congress was called into an extraordinary session, where not all legislators were notified or present, and presented with what was claimed to have been Zelaya's resignation letter, dated 25 June.[111] Zelaya has said he did not write the letter. Congress voted to remove Zelaya for "manifest irregular conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of law." By a show of hands, the National Congress – the majority of whom belonged to Zelaya's own Liberal party[112] – appointed the President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's party, to be president to succeed Zelaya.[113]


A clash between pro-Zelaya protesters and the Honduran military[edit] Legality
The interim government, including the National Congress and Supreme Court maintain Zelaya was replaced constitutionally. Arguments that Zelaya's removal was illegal have been advanced by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law[114][115][116] and others.[117] Acting Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said forcing deposed President Manuel Zelaya to leave the country, instead of arresting him, was a mistake.[1][110][118]

If wiki is presenting this fairly, it sounds like there is enough gray to make me not care one way or the other.

Really?

The quoted statement from wiki indicates that:
1) Zelaya's opponents in Congress fabricated a bogus resignation letter,
2) They then held an improperly constituted, partially secret session of of the legislature
3) This improper rump session then voted for his "removal" (AFTER he had already been removed) based on the forged document.

I don't see where one can get "gray" from this, unless it is a sickly bull producing the shit in question.

[alfred russel]

and the wiki entry reads:

The National Congress was called into an extraordinary session, where not all legislators were notified or present, and presented with what was claimed to have been Zelaya's resignation letter, dated 25 June.[111] Zelaya has said he did not write the letter. Congress voted to remove Zelaya for "manifest irregular conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of law." By a show of hands, the National Congress – the majority of whom belonged to Zelaya's own Liberal party[112] – appointed the President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's party, to be president to succeed Zelaya.[113]


A clash between pro-Zelaya protesters and the Honduran military[edit] Legality
The interim government, including the National Congress and Supreme Court maintain Zelaya was replaced constitutionally. Arguments that Zelaya's removal was illegal have been advanced by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law[114][115][116] and others.[117] Acting Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said forcing deposed President Manuel Zelaya to leave the country, instead of arresting him, was a mistake.[1][110][118]

If wiki is presenting this fairly, it sounds like there is enough gray to make me not care one way or the other.

Really?

The quoted statement from wiki indicates that:
1) Zelaya's opponents in Congress fabricated a bogus resignation letter,
2) They then held an improperly constituted, partially secret session of of the legislature
3) This improper rump session then voted for his "removal" (AFTER he had already been removed) based on the forged document.

I don't see where one can get "gray" from this, unless it is a sickly bull producing the shit in question.

Point #2 isn't necessarily indicated by the article. There have been funny games played with quorum rules in American history. I'm also not sure that it is material whether the vote was based on forged evidence (in this country, would it matter if the president was removed from office based on false evidence? I don't think there is a constitutional remedy for that situation).

The wiki article states the supreme court--which apparently isn't apolitical--initially ordered that Zelaya be detained, and after the military exiled him, endorsed that action.

You also have listed out a rather undemocratic section of a constitution that Zelaya seems to have violated that would require him to be removed from office, but that doesn't seem to have been cited until he after he was removed.

[grumbler]

To add a bit more amusing evidence to the mix, the Honduran Congress in 2003 voided all elements of the Honduran Constitution that dealt with impeachment, but never got around to replacing them.  Thus, the Congress had no power to impeach or remove from office.  They merely have the power to "disapprove."