Quote
President Manuel Zelaya's decision to follow through with a constitutional referendum on June 28, 2009 that was rejected by Congress and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, has provoked a serious political crisis in the country.[5] The military is in charge of elections in Honduras but the head of the army refused to pass out the ballots. Zelaya removed him from his position but the Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. The government staged a protest in a military base and took possession of the ballots. On June 28, they were seized by the military.[2]
[edit] Developments
The presidential residence was seized by military troops and surrounded by tanks. Zelaya's supporters have gathered outside the building protesting the coup. [6]
The power and telephone lines were suspended on Tegucigalpa about the time of the arrest of President Zelaya but they were restored at about 11:00 a.m. local time (19:00 GMT). Soldiers occupied several strategic areas of the capital but there are no restrictions on traffic, many stores are open, no shootings were registred, there are no further arrests being made and the ambient is quiet and calm. Some military jets overflew the capital early in the morning but they returned to their bases and at 11:30 local time (19:30 GMT)only some helicopters are patrolling in support of the police to prevent riots or looting, which have not been registred.
Within several hours of the coup, Zelaya spoke to media in San Jose, Costa Rica, calling today's events "a coup" and "a kidnapping." He stated that soldiers pulled him from his bed, and assaulted his guards. Zelaya stated that he will not recognize anyone named as his successor, and that he wants to finish his term in office. He also stated that he will now be meeting with diplomats.[7]
According to Venezuela's ambassador to the OAS the ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua were kidnapped by the military and transported to the airport.[6] Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has stated that the Venezuelan ambassador was assaulted by Hondruan soldiers and left by the side of a road.[8]
Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas has called on the public to "fight in the streets for the president to return to Honduras."[9]
Later that day, the Supreme Court issued a statement that it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office.[1]
The national Congress has voted to accept what they claimed is Zelaya's letter of resignation, but Zelaya has said he did not write the letter.[10]
[edit] International reaction
The Organization of American States has called for an emergency meeting.[1][11] Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza called it a military coup.
The European Union called on the Honduran military to release the president and restore constitutional order.[1]
United States President Barack Obama is said to be "deeply concerned" about the developments in Honduras. He called on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.[1][9][12]
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called the "coup" worthy of "troglodytes" and called for Obama to speak out because the US "has a lot to do" with what happens in Honduras.[13] Bolivian President Evo Morales joined Chávez in the condemnation.[14]
A few hours later, Chavez put his military on alert and said that he will do everything necessary to abort the coup in Honduras.[15]
President of Argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said the events were a return to "barbaric times".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Will this revolution kill the michael jackson week? or will Michael jackson make veryone forget about this little country?
If absolutely NOTHING happened this week, no one would still give a shit about Honduras.
Quote from: Jaron on June 28, 2009, 02:54:29 PM
If absolutely NOTHING happened this week, no one would still give a shit about Honduras.
QFT
Will U.S. Fruit request assistance from the Marines?
Quote from: Syt on June 28, 2009, 03:27:47 PM
Will U.S. Fruit request assistance from the Marines?
Those were the days. :(
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on June 28, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
The military is in charge of elections in Honduras but...
lolwtf
So how are the storage jars?
So the President wanted to pull a Chavez and the military overthrew him with the backing of the Congress?
Don't get the storage jar reference. :unsure:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
So how are the storage jars?
:lol:
Re-watched the episode just yesterday.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2009, 06:47:25 PM
So the President wanted to pull a Chavez and the military overthrew him with the backing of the Congress?
Yeah, sounds good to me. Been ages since we've seen a decent, successful Latin American coup :)
QuoteCountries throughout Latin America and the world condemned Zelaya's expulsion, and Chavez said before Micheletti was sworn in that if he was appointed president, "we will overthrow him." Chavez said Venezuela "is at battle" and put his military on alert.
What are they going to do, catch a bus to get there? Charter a Taca flight?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2009, 12:54:50 AM
QuoteCountries throughout Latin America and the world condemned Zelaya's expulsion, and Chavez said before Micheletti was sworn in that if he was appointed president, "we will overthrow him." Chavez said Venezuela "is at battle" and put his military on alert.
What are they going to do, catch a bus to get there? Charter a Taca flight?
Maybe the drug smugglers will let them borrow some planes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2009, 06:47:25 PM
So the President wanted to pull a Chavez and the military overthrew him with the backing of the Congress?
Not sure, but it seems that something like that is going on there. Has to be more to it though, given that the Obama admin has issued strong concerns.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31604879/ns/world_news-americas/
Latin America on edge after Honduras coup
Regional leaders hold crisis talks after 1st Central American coup since '93
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - Presidents from around Latin America were gathering in Nicaragua for meetings Monday after Honduras' military deposed the country's president, the first military overthrow of a Central American government in 16 years.
Once again, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took center stage, casting the dispute as a rebellion by the region's poor.
"If the oligarchies break the rules of the game as they have done, the people have the right to resistance and combat, and we are with them," Chavez said in the Nicaraguan capital, Managua.
Between ousted leader, replacement
Honduras is now torn between two presidents: one legally recognized by world bodies after he was deposed and forced from the country by his own soldiers, and another supported by the Central American nation's congress, courts and military.
There is a deep rift between the outside world — which is clamoring for the return of democratically elected, but largely unpopular and soon-to-leave-office President Manuel Zelaya — and congressionally designated successor Roberto Micheletti.
Micheletti rejected any outside interference and declared a two-night curfew, while Chavez vowed that "we will overthrow (Micheletti)."
Zelaya was seized by soldiers and hustled aboard a plane to Costa Rica early Sunday, just hours before a rogue referendum Zelaya had called in defiance of the courts and Congress, and which his opponents said was an attempt to remain in power after his term ends Jan. 27.
The Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single 4-year term, and Zelaya's opponents feared he would use the referendum results to try to run again, just as Chavez reformed his country's constitution to be able to seek re-election repeatedly.
Micheletti said the army acted on orders from the courts, and the ouster was carried out "to defend respect for the law and the principles of democracy." But he threatened to jail Zelaya and put him on trial if he returned. Micheletti also hit back at Chavez, saying "nobody, not Barack Obama and much less Hugo Chavez, has any right to threaten this country."
Obama 'deeply concerned'
Earlier, Obama said in a statement he was "deeply concerned" about the events, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Zelaya's arrest should be condemned.
"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter," Obama's statement read.
For those conditions to be met, Zelaya must be returned to power, U.S. officials said.
Two senior Obama administration officials told reporters that U.S. diplomats were working to ensure Zelaya's safe return.
The officials said the Obama administration in recent days had warned Honduran power players, including the armed forces, that the United States would not support a coup, but Honduran military leaders stopped taking their calls.
Zelaya said soldiers seized him in his pajamas at gunpoint in what he called a "coup" and a "kidnapping." The United Nations, the Organization of American States and governments throughout Latin America called for Zelaya to be allowed to resume office.
"I want to return to my country. I am president of Honduras," Zelaya said Sunday before traveling to Managua on one of Chavez's planes for regional meetings of Central American leaders and Chavez's leftist alliance of nations, known as ALBA.
Zelaya's call for civil disobedience and peaceful resistance appeared to gain only modest support in Honduras, where a few hundred people turned out at government buildings to jeer soldiers and chant "Traitors!"
Some of Zelaya's Cabinet members were detained by soldiers or police following his ouster, according to former government official Armando Sarmiento. And the rights group Freedom of Expression said leftist legislator Cesar Ham had died in a shootout with soldiers trying to detain him.
A Honduran Security Department spokesman said he had no information on Ham.
Armored military vehicles with machine guns rolled through the streets of the Honduran capital and soldiers seized the national palace, but no other incidents of violence were reported.
Click for related content
Protests erupt after coup in Honduras
U.S. talks with deposed Honduran leader
Former allies turn against president
Sunday afternoon, Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya's letter of resignation, with even the president's former allies turning against him. Micheletti, who as leader of Congress is in line to fill any vacancy in the presidency, was sworn in to serve until Zelaya's term ends.
Micheletti belongs to Zelaya's Liberal Party, but opposed the president in the referendum.
Micheletti acknowledged that he had not spoken to any Latin American heads of state, but said, "I'm sure that 80 to 90 percent of the Honduran population is happy with what happened today."
The Organization of American States approved a resolution Sunday demanding "the immediate, safe and unconditional return of the constitutional president, Manuel Zelaya."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the coup and "urges the reinstatement of the democratically elected representatives of the country," said his spokeswoman, Michele Montas.
The Rio Group, which comprises 23 nations from the hemisphere, issued a statement condemning "the coup d'etat" and calling for Zelaya's "immediate and unconditional restoration to his duties."
And Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou canceled a planned visit to Honduras, one of just 23 countries that still recognize the self-governing island.
Coups were common in Central America for four decades reaching back to the 1950s, but Sunday's ouster was the first military power grab in Latin America since a brief, failed 2002 coup against Chavez. It was the first in Central America since military officials forced President Jorge Serrano of Guatemala to step down in 1993 after he tried to dissolve Congress and suspend the constitution.
Obama and other countries are worried that the military may not give back power to the civilian authorities. A genuine concern for sure, but it's still a good sign that people stepped up to prevent another Chavez.
Yeah I guess it remains to be seen if this is the military protecting the republic or the military deciding to be the republic.
Either way is not good but the former is better than the latter.
Frankly if the people of Latin America want to be ruled by a bunch of Chavezs they deserve what is coming to them. Elites cannot save people from their own idiocy forever. But it seems most Latin American countries rightly recognize that is a real bad idea.
I'm starting to think that South American politics can be a bit unstable.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2009, 09:57:13 AM
I'm starting to think that South American politics can be a bit unstable.
[Harrison Ford]A bit unstable! I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.[/Harrison Ford]
By the way Honduras is not in South America.
The default answer at the WH seems to be that "deeply concerned" line. I wonder if they have an autoresponder bot at the State Department.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 29, 2009, 10:04:56 AM
The default answer at the WH seems to be that "deeply concerned" line. I wonder if they have an autoresponder bot at the State Department.
"Deeply concerned"
Perhaps that phrase does not mean what the auto respond bot thinks it means.... ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 29, 2009, 10:04:56 AM
The default answer at the WH seems to be that "deeply concerned" line. I wonder if they have an autoresponder bot at the State Department.
Sounds good to me. Doing nothing should always be what we do unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
Meanwhile, in other Latin American news, the Kirchners got their asses kicked in Argentina's election :cool:
Lip service by the Obama admin on opposing this coup? I doubt they like the idea of a Chavez like leader emerging in Honduras (or anywhere else for that matter).
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:47:41 PM
Lip service by the Obama admin on opposing this coup? I doubt they like the idea of a Chavez like leader emerging in Honduras (or anywhere else for that matter).
They should let the buzz die down a bit, and then recognize the new gov't. in a few days :)
I doubt Obama really gives a fuck who's in charge in Honduras.
Quote from: KRonn on June 29, 2009, 07:47:41 PM
Lip service by the Obama admin on opposing this coup? I doubt they like the idea of a Chavez like leader emerging in Honduras (or anywhere else for that matter).
Why wouldn't he? He seems perfectly chummy with Chavez. Apparently it is wrong to meddle in Iran, but ok to meddle in Honduras. The only consistency is that in both cases Obama came to the support of the anti-american, thuggish regime.
You're much better off being an enemy of the US than a friend with this Administration.
Looks like there's gonna be a showdown, though I can't see how the ex-president hopes to succeed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0520325220090705
QuoteU.N.'s D'Escoto to travel to Honduras with Zelaya
Sun Jul 5, 2009 1:20pm EDT
WASHINGTON, July 5 (Reuters) - United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto will accompany ousted President Manuel Zelaya to Honduras, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said on Sunday.
"There is a great mobilization of people in Tegucigalpa and we don't know if the interim government or the top brass of the military will dare repress those people. So we decided that the most prudent thing to do was that the president of the U.N. General Assembly Miguel D'Escoto accompany President Zelaya back to Tegucigalpa," Correa said at a news conference in Washington.
In Central America's first coup since the Cold War era Zelaya, Zelaya, a leftist who took power who had been due to leave office in 2010, was ousted by troops and sent into exile a week ago after a dispute over presidential term limits.
Correa said Zelaya would return to Honduras on Sunday. He provided no details about the trip.
Latin American countries had advised Zelaya against a return to Honduras, saying it could sharply escalate tension. The interim government has said it would arrest him if he returns.
Organization of American States Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez and Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo and Correa will travel to neighboring El Salvador to monitor Zelaya's return, Correa said.
"The time is running out for this interim government and not because of international pressure, but because of the Honduran people's pressure," Correa said, speaking after a meeting in Washington with the group of Latin American presidents who will travel to El Salvador.
The OAS had met earlier on Sunday in Washington and took the rare step to suspend Honduras after the interim authorities ignored an ultimatum by the 34-member body to reinstate Zelaya.
(Reporting by Alonso Soto, Editing by Stacey Joyce and Sandra Maler)
Oh no, the president of the UN general assembly!
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on June 28, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
Will this revolution kill the michael jackson week? or will Michael jackson make veryone forget about this little country?
Too late, I thought Honduras was some new hybrid being put out by Honda. ;)
Hopefully the Hondurans have all these interlopers executed.
Heating up:
QuoteTEGUCIGALPA, July 5 (Reuters) - Honduras' interim President Roberto Micheletti said on Sunday Nicaraguan troops were moving to the mutual frontier and urged Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to respect Honduran sovereignty.
He gave no further details about troop movements in Nicaragua which shares a border with Honduras to the southeast of the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa.
His comments came as ousted President Manuel Zelaya attempted to fly home a week after he was ousted in a coup. Zelaya is a left-wing ally of Ortega and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.
The interim government said it had contacted the Organization of American States to express its willingness to enter dialogue.
The OAS earlier on Sunday suspended Honduras for refusing to reinstate Zelaya. (Reporting by Patrick Markey)
Who cares about Honduras.
They don't even speak english.
And predictably they don't let him land.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31736694/ns/world_news-americas/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2009, 09:40:37 PM
And predictably they don't let him land.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31736694/ns/world_news-americas/
Why latin-american people are so religious?
Can't they make a political decision without mentioning crosses and blood?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 10:10:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2009, 09:40:37 PM
And predictably they don't let him land.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31736694/ns/world_news-americas/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31736694/ns/world_news-americas/)
Why latin-american people are so religious?
Can't they make a political decision without mentioning crosses and blood?
It's not like American politicians don't mention God every 2 words...
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2009, 12:52:05 PM
It's not like American politicians don't mention God every 2 words...
Well that is different. God actually likes us, but he seems to only want to make the Latin American people suffer.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2009, 12:53:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2009, 12:52:05 PM
It's not like American politicians don't mention God every 2 words...
Well that is different. God actually likes us, but he seems to only want to make the Latin American people suffer.
Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States.
Seems like Hugo Chavez has a lot more influence in the region than we gave him credit for. He got Obama and the entire OAS to jump through his hoop.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 01:32:49 PM
Seems like Hugo Chavez has a lot more influence in the region than we gave him credit for. He got Obama and the entire OAS to jump through his hoop.
I think Obama did the right thing. The dude had two years left in his term, if after two years he barricades himself in the presidential palace and tells his followers to take to the streets, that's the time for the military to take action.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:03:06 PM
I think Obama did the right thing. The dude had two years left in his term, if after two years he barricades himself in the presidential palace and tells his followers to take to the streets, that's the time for the military to take action.
The military didn't have a choice. It was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove him from office, in accordance with the Honduran constitution. The system worked-- it wasn't even a coup.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
The military didn't have a choice. It was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove him from office, in accordance with the Honduran constitution. The system worked-- it wasn't even a coup.
Really? That changes things. What's your source?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
The military didn't have a choice. It was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove him from office, in accordance with the Honduran constitution. The system worked-- it wasn't even a coup.
Really? That changes things. What's your source?
"Later that day, the Supreme Court issued a statement that it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office.[1] "
This is in the posted article, if that can be taken at face value.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:03:06 PM
I think Obama did the right thing. The dude had two years left in his term, if after two years he barricades himself in the presidential palace and tells his followers to take to the streets, that's the time for the military to take action.
The election was scheduled for November 29th 2009.
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
"Later that day, the Supreme Court issued a statement that it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office.[1] "
This is in the posted article, if that can be taken at face value.
Which doesn't really address the question of whether the court had the constitutional authority to do so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
The military didn't have a choice. It was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove him from office, in accordance with the Honduran constitution. The system worked-- it wasn't even a coup.
Really? That changes things. What's your source?
Honduran constitution: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html
Article 239 translated:
Quote"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."
Here's an OpEd from the CSM: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
Wow, pretty severe. Sort of like that Athenian law that anyone who proposes to spend the "special reserve" get executed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
Wow, pretty severe. Sort of like that Athenian law that anyone who proposes to spend the "special reserve" get executed.
Yeah, but I suppose you get really tired of caudillos after a while.
Look for Argentina to outlaw wives of former presidents running for office pretty soon :P
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2009, 02:03:06 PM
I think Obama did the right thing. The dude had two years left in his term, if after two years he barricades himself in the presidential palace and tells his followers to take to the streets, that's the time for the military to take action.
The military didn't have a choice. It was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove him from office, in accordance with the Honduran constitution. The system worked-- it wasn't even a coup.
One thing is removing from office through, you know, trials and lawful means, and another different one is breaking into the official residence at night, taking the guy out of bed at gunpoint and putting him on a plane to a different country.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 03:16:15 AM
One thing is removing from office through, you know, trials and lawful means, and another different one is breaking into the official residence at night, taking the guy out of bed at gunpoint and putting him on a plane to a different country.
What! Will you never cease prating of laws to us that have swords by our sides?
Seriously though if his removal was legal and demanded through the judiciary why does the details of how it was done matter? It is not like the army killed anybody.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 03:16:15 AM
One thing is removing from office through, you know, trials and lawful means, and another different one is breaking into the official residence at night, taking the guy out of bed at gunpoint and putting him on a plane to a different country.
It wasn't at night, it was in the morning. It was at gunpoint because he had heavily armed bodyguards and he had already led a mini-uprising to force the army's hand in accepting his referendum idea.
When someone tries to seize power illegally, it a country like Honduras, it may be dangerous to allow him to remain in place, as Venezuela has proven.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 03:16:15 AM
One thing is removing from office through, you know, trials and lawful means, and another different one is breaking into the official residence at night, taking the guy out of bed at gunpoint and putting him on a plane to a different country.
Not sure what "trial" you are referring to. The law says there is no trial, they guy has simply vacated his office.
The problem of what to do with ex-Presidents has vexed many countries. The US would arguably have been better-off doing this to Clinton as soon as his term ended.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2009, 08:21:24 AM
The problem of what to do with ex-Presidents has vexed many countries. The US would arguably have been better-off doing this to Clinton as soon as his term ended.
Well, we did send him to Haiti this week. That's harsh enough.
Sure, the guy had to go, I don't doubt that, although it can be said that pretending to hold a non binding referendum might be feeble grounds to it. What I question are the means used to do it. Surely expatriation was overkill, and against the Honduran penal code itself.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 08:26:56 AM
Well, we did send him to Haiti this week. That's harsh enough.
Harsh? Dude probably had a craving for chocolate buns :perv:
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Sure, the guy had to go, I don't doubt that, although it can be said that pretending to hold a non binding referendum might be feeble grounds to it. What I question are the means used to do it. Surely expatriation was overkill, and against the Honduran penal code itself.
Those are the means things have been getting done in Central America for a long time. At least this time it was done to enforce the law, not break it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:32:03 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Sure, the guy had to go, I don't doubt that, although it can be said that pretending to hold a non binding referendum might be feeble grounds to it. What I question are the means used to do it. Surely expatriation was overkill, and against the Honduran penal code itself.
Those are the means things have been getting done in Central America for a long time. At least this time it was done to enforce the law, not break it.
My personal opinion is that, when "enforcing" the law, they went way overboard and broke other laws in the process. Even if the spirit of the law is being kept, plenty of unsavoury stuff was done as well on its name.
Seems to me, especially after seeing the Honduran Constitution, that the Honduran courts did the right thing - obeyed the laws. While the President did not. Saying he was innocently proposing a referendum seems off the mark, since that referendum violates the country's Constitution. Looks like the Hondurans have a Constitution that tries to ensure Democracy and prevent strong men or dictators from coming to power. The travesty probably would have been if the military sided with the President.
However, I guess it can be argued that the courts should have waited, that the referendum was just being proposed for voting, and not being implemented. But if such an unlawful referendum is allowed, it could probably be argued that it sets a dangerous course and one that would be more problematic.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:37:39 AM
My personal opinion is that, when "enforcing" the law, they went way overboard and broke other laws in the process. Even if the spirit of the law is being kept, plenty of unsavoury stuff was done as well on its name.
I'm inclined to agree with you. What are your thoughts on the OAS position?
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:37:39 AM
My personal opinion is that, when "enforcing" the law, they went way overboard and broke other laws in the process. Even if the spirit of the law is being kept, plenty of unsavoury stuff was done as well on its name.
Well I certainly agree that having the military execute domestic laws and throw Presidents out of the country is probably not a good thing it is better than what I originally thought the situation was.
Fortunately, he wasn't actually the president anymore. The positions taken by the other American states seem mainly to be founded in a desire to create another left-wind dictator (Venezuala) or profound ignorance (the US).
Regarding the referendum that triggered the whole situation, it was way more innocent that you may think.
It was a non-binding proposal to add a question during the next elections to ask if voters wanted to form a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, not a straight forward "Do you want me for a second mandate" one. To add insult to the injury, Zelaya never said that he'd seek reelection this way, that was what the opposition accused him of wanting.
Sure, the whole situation stank, but I don't think that the answer was proportional.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 08:39:59 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:37:39 AM
My personal opinion is that, when "enforcing" the law, they went way overboard and broke other laws in the process. Even if the spirit of the law is being kept, plenty of unsavoury stuff was done as well on its name.
I'm inclined to agree with you. What are your thoughts on the OAS position?
Which position, suspending Honduras' membership on it?
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:58:24 AM
Regarding the referendum that triggered the whole situation, it was way more innocent that you may think.
It was a non-binding proposal to add a question during the next elections to ask if voters wanted to form a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, not a straight forward "Do you want me for a second mandate" one. To add insult to the injury, Zelaya never said that he'd seek reelection this way, that was what the opposition accused him of wanting.
Sure, the whole situation stank, but I don't think that the answer was proportional.
The constitution says "proposing reform" is grounds for expulsion though.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:00:32 AM
Which position, suspending Honduras' membership on it?
Si.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:58:24 AM
Regarding the referendum that triggered the whole situation, it was way more innocent that you may think.
It was a non-binding proposal to add a question during the next elections to ask if voters wanted to form a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, not a straight forward "Do you want me for a second mandate" one. To add insult to the injury, Zelaya never said that he'd seek reelection this way, that was what the opposition accused him of wanting.
Sure, the whole situation stank, but I don't think that the answer was proportional.
And yet the Supreme Court decided he violated the law, and had forfeited his office. There is only one legal avenue of appeal to the Supreme Court, and that is to contest the result with armed force. What other response was possible?
I have to say this makes the claim the President of Honduras was 'illegally' expelled and thus the existing government illegal a bit shakey if they did it according to their own laws. Is there some sort of higher law Honduras is required to follow? After all we haven't booted the many Latin American states that have had actual illegal military coups out of the OAS.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 09:01:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 08:58:24 AM
Regarding the referendum that triggered the whole situation, it was way more innocent that you may think.
It was a non-binding proposal to add a question during the next elections to ask if voters wanted to form a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, not a straight forward "Do you want me for a second mandate" one. To add insult to the injury, Zelaya never said that he'd seek reelection this way, that was what the opposition accused him of wanting.
Sure, the whole situation stank, but I don't think that the answer was proportional.
The constitution says "proposing reform" is grounds for expulsion though.
Proposing reform of the "set in stone" articles, not proposing reform at all. AFAIK, it was never explicitly stated that the constitutional assembly would reform those specific articles.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:02:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:00:32 AM
Which position, suspending Honduras' membership on it?
Si.
Until the situation is solved, I think it's a legitimate answer. Then again the grounds in which it was argued seemed shaky.
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 08:50:20 AM
Fortunately, he wasn't actually the president anymore. The positions taken by the other American states seem mainly to be founded in a desire to create another left-wind dictator (Venezuala) or profound ignorance (the US).
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:10:10 AM
Until the situation is solved, I think it's a legitimate answer. Then again the grounds in which it was argued seemed shaky.
Uh, what do you mean by "solved?" Comosellama is returned to office?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:05:31 AM
I have to say this makes the claim the President of Honduras was 'illegally' expelled and thus the existing government illegal a bit shakey if they did it according to their own laws. Is there some sort of higher law Honduras is required to follow? After all we haven't booted the many Latin American states that have had actual illegal military coups out of the OAS.
Apparently, the Honduran constitution itself also forbids the state from expelling its nationals to other countries, that's the basis for the "illegal" claim, and the Honduran army itself admitted that they broke the law when expelling Zelaya, but they argued that it had to be done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:15:58 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:10:10 AM
Until the situation is solved, I think it's a legitimate answer. Then again the grounds in which it was argued seemed shaky.
Uh, what do you mean by "solved?" Comosellama is returned to office?
An agreement of any kind is reached between all parts. No need to have Zelaya return to office, I doubt it could be even possible anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
That, or a manifestation of the American left view that "they" can do no wrong and "we" can do no right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:22:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
That, or a manifestation of the American left view that "they" can do no wrong and "we" can do no right.
No comprendo.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:21:18 AM
An agreement of any kind is reached between all parts. No need to have Zelaya return to office, I doubt it could be even possible anyway.
You're granting Zelaya veto over Honduran membership in the OAS.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 08:50:20 AM
Fortunately, he wasn't actually the president anymore. The positions taken by the other American states seem mainly to be founded in a desire to create another left-wind dictator (Venezuala) or profound ignorance (the US).
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
Do you think that their reaction can successfully do that? The left-wing, blame-the-CIA crowd isn't responsive to facts or logic.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:24:40 AM
No comprendo.
Opponents of the US such as Chavez get "I'm not here to lecture." Allies of the US such as Israel and Karzai get lectures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:27:44 AM
Opponents of the US such as Chavez get "I'm not here to lecture." Allies of the US such as Israel and Karzai get lectures.
The best way to handle people like Chavez is ignore them as completely as possible.
Israel seems to do whatever they feel they must. We make suggestions and they pretty much do whatever it is they think it is best for themselves and we rarely protest too much.
As for Karzai...well that is different since our soldiers are defending his government. We kind of have a stake (and influence) in what he does we don't have with the Iranians and Chavez so why should we waste our breath?
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 08:50:20 AM
Fortunately, he wasn't actually the president anymore. The positions taken by the other American states seem mainly to be founded in a desire to create another left-wind dictator (Venezuala) or profound ignorance (the US).
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
Do you think that their reaction can successfully do that? The left-wing, blame-the-CIA crowd isn't responsive to facts or logic.
But it makes them look stupid if they still want to blame us.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
But it makes them look stupid if they still want to blame us.
Since when do they care about that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:24:40 AM
No comprendo.
Opponents of the US such as Chavez get "I'm not here to lecture." Allies of the US such as Israel and Karzai get lectures.
We have leverage over Israel and Karzai. If we want to lecture them they have to listen and in some cases respond. What good can come from lecturing people like Chavez that make their career based on fighting wars of words against the US?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:21:18 AM
An agreement of any kind is reached between all parts. No need to have Zelaya return to office, I doubt it could be even possible anyway.
You're granting Zelaya veto over Honduran membership in the OAS.
Apparently the interim government left it anyway before the expulsion vote was held, so that doesn't seem to matter a lot to them. It may be a "You're not kicking us out, we're leaving!" kind of answer, but anyway, they don't seem to care much about the OAS.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
But it makes them look stupid if they still want to blame us.
Since when do they care about that?
Chavez is (theoretically) trying to spark a Latin American movement. The dumber he looks, the less traction his anti american rhetoric is going to get.
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 08:38:58 AM
However, I guess it can be argued that the courts should have waited, that the referendum was just being proposed for voting, and not being implemented. But if such an unlawful referendum is allowed, it could probably be argued that it sets a dangerous course and one that would be more problematic.
as per the Constitution, the army is in charge of safekeeping the voting boxes.
The President wanted a referendum and the Court said no (as weel as the Congress).
Zelaya ordered the army to participate in the referendum, the Supreme Court said no, the army obeyed the court, the President fired the Chief of the army, wich the court then ordered reinstated.
The President then marched to the base with his supporters to get back the boxes, and succeeded as the army was not in a mood to fire on the civilians.
Following that, was there any doubt the guy would use any means to maintain his power? Was there really any choice left for the Court to order its destitution?
I don't think so.
@Larch:
non binding or not is irrelevant. The Supreme Court, in charge of interpreting the Constitution said it was illegal, therefore it is.
That's what happens in democratic countries with working justice system, you take your chance to the court, but once it has reached its decision, you either abide by it or you suffer the consequences.
IIRC, the Constitution can be changed by 2/3 vote of the Congress, except for the articles wich can't be changed.
The guy was simply trying to grab power, the way his friend Chavez did. US&Canada, among others are trying to appease Chavez by declaring it illegal, but I just don't see how we can disregard court decisions of other countries juste because we don't like it.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 08:50:20 AM
Fortunately, he wasn't actually the president anymore. The positions taken by the other American states seem mainly to be founded in a desire to create another left-wind dictator (Venezuala) or profound ignorance (the US).
Do you really think there was "profound ignorance" on the part of the US, or do you think the US is responding with the aim of taking the air out of the balloon of the left wing blame everything on the CIA crowd?
Do you think that their reaction can successfully do that? The left-wing, blame-the-CIA crowd isn't responsive to facts or logic.
But it makes them look stupid if they still want to blame us.
They've always looked stupid and that never stopped them before.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:31:11 AM
The best way to handle people like Chavez is ignore them as completely as possible.
that's not really reasonable when the guy is trying to extend his influence and perveting democracy outside his borders.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 09:41:25 AM@Larch:
non binding or not is irrelevant. The Supreme Court, in charge of interpreting the Constitution said it was illegal, therefore it is.
That's what happens in democratic countries with working justice system, you take your chance to the court, but once it has reached its decision, you either abide by it or you suffer the consequences.
IIRC, the Constitution can be changed by 2/3 vote of the Congress, except for the articles wich can't be changed.
The guy was simply trying to grab power, the way his friend Chavez did. US&Canada, among others are trying to appease Chavez by declaring it illegal, but I just don't see how we can disregard court decisions of other countries juste because we don't like it.
I don't dissagree that the whole referendum issue stank to high Heaven, what I dissagree with is with the execution of the whole affair.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
that's not really reasonable when the guy is trying to extend his influence and perveting democracy outside his borders.
Fortunately for us Chavez is an inept idiot who will dig his own grave. No reason to interrupt him ruining his prospects.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 09:46:03 AM
I don't dissagree that the whole referendum issue stank to high Heaven, what I dissagree with is with the execution of the whole affair.
Ok, but what real, practical choice did they have? What happens once they arrest him and send him to jail? Nicaragua is moving troops to the border, Venezuala and others are threatening to use force to reinstate Zelaya.
Out of the country, he can't be put back on the throne. In the country, he is a danger do democracy.
I see as the same kind of action that leads countries like the UK&Canada to remove the passport and expel citizens who preach hate against the West. These people are judged to be too dangerous to be kept on national soil. Why can't it be the same with a former President?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:47:31 AM
Fortunately for us Chavez is an inept idiot who will dig his own grave. No reason to interrupt him ruining his prospects.
I do not share your optimism.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 09:50:22 AM
Nicaragua is moving troops to the border, Venezuala and others are threatening to use force to reinstate Zelaya.
Martim has already begun celebrating the glorious victory by the mightiest military machine on earth.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 09:50:22 AMNicaragua is moving troops to the border, Venezuala and others are threatening to use force to reinstate Zelaya.
When did that happen? And anyway, do you really think that there'd be military action over this?
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 10:00:11 AM
When did that happen? And anyway, do you really think that there'd be military action over this?
You and I both know there won't be.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 10:00:11 AM
When did that happen? And anyway, do you really think that there'd be military action over this?
You and I both know there won't be.
Why not? I'd think there could be. I assume they would want to see someone of like mind as Zelaya be reinstated, someone who wants to gain more power. Give him another chance to carry out his moves on creating a fiefdom, like Chavez has done.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2009, 09:35:44 AM
We have leverage over Israel and Karzai. If we want to lecture them they have to listen and in some cases respond. What good can come from lecturing people like Chavez that make their career based on fighting wars of words against the US?
First, we have leverage over a lot of countries.
Second, Chavez has done some things that went past a war of words.
Third, there's something to be said for taking positions in support of democracy, the rule of law, etc. even when our position won't affect the outcome.
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 10:18:36 AM
Why not? I'd think there could be. I assume they would want to see someone of like mind as Zelaya be reinstated, someone who wants to gain more power. Give him another chance to carry out his moves on creating a fiefdom, like Chavez has done.
I don't. There is no public support for military action and no money to pay for it. That is why the very few wars they have in Latin America tend to be short and rather bloodless.
Edit: Naturally I mean the more recent wars not ones like the War of the Triple Alliance.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2009, 10:18:36 AM
Why not? I'd think there could be. I assume they would want to see someone of like mind as Zelaya be reinstated, someone who wants to gain more power. Give him another chance to carry out his moves on creating a fiefdom, like Chavez has done.
I don't. There is no public support for military action and no money to pay for it. That is why the very few wars they have in Latin America tend to be short and rather bloodless.
The Soccer war was hilarious.
Ok, I'm confused.
That dude, the honduran president, is he a commie like Chavez?
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 10:38:42 AM
Ok, I'm confused.
That dude, the honduran president, is he a commie like Chavez?
Yes, which explains why Obama supports him.
Can anyone make sense of this statement from the Obamateur?
"America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. . .And we haven't always done what we should have on that front. Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies."
:blink:
'We love Democracy, we don't play favorites, and we don't tell people who they should elect or what system of goverment they should have. Everybody should love America since we are so fair minded and just. AMERICA HELL YA!'
Something like that it seems to me.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 08, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Can anyone make sense of this statement from the Obamateur?
"America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. . .And we haven't always done what we should have on that front. Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies."
:blink:
Sure, he's saying we don't want to impose anything on the Hondurans and we want to impose their deposed leader on them. That's on top of the fact that we don't want them to adhere to their constitution. Perfect logic :D
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:47:31 AM
Fortunately for us Chavez is an inept idiot who will dig his own grave. No reason to interrupt him ruining his prospects.
If his influence were limited to Venezuela, I'd agree with you, more or less. But I think we've underestimated his ability to impact the region. He has managed to (via influence, money, bribery, etc.) get his friends elected in other countries, and has co-opted them into his sphere of influence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas)).
We failed to contain Chavez, and I think things will get a lot worse for the US in Latin America (as well as Latin American itself) before they get better. Eventually the pendulum may swing back the other way, but as it stands we have few friendly governments in the region and quite a few who oppose us to some degree.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 11:28:26 AM
Sure, he's saying we don't want to impose anything on the Hondurans and we want to impose their deposed leader on them. That's on top of the fact that we don't want them to adhere to their constitution. Perfect logic :D
:D
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
If his influence were limited to Venezuela, I'd agree with you, more or less. But I think we've underestimated his ability to impact the region.
Ecuador and Bolivia are hardly some sort of massive sphere of influence.
I have full confidence his system will fail. Besides what sort of activities are we doing in Latin America that can seriously be threatened by Chavez?
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 08, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Can anyone make sense of this statement from the Obamateur?
"America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. . .And we haven't always done what we should have on that front. Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies."
:blink:
Sure, he's saying we don't want to impose anything on the Hondurans and we want to impose their deposed leader on them. That's on top of the fact that we don't want them to adhere to their constitution. Perfect logic :D
Let's be fair. Obama probably doesn't know anything about the Honduran constitution, nor does he care. He's just mouthing platitudes.
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
Let's be fair. Obama probably doesn't know anything about the Honduran constitution, nor does he care. He's just mouthing platitudes.
I blame the State Department.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
If his influence were limited to Venezuela, I'd agree with you, more or less. But I think we've underestimated his ability to impact the region.
Ecuador and Bolivia are hardly some sort of massive sphere of influence.
I have full confidence his system will fail. Besides what sort of activities are we doing in Latin America that can seriously be threatened by Chavez?
Anti-narcotic efforts.
Furthermore we should oppose the spread of dictatorships and communism out of principle.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
I blame the State Department.
Hil should not have invited Mr. Deposed to the US.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 01:08:28 PM
Anti-narcotic efforts.
Furthermore we should oppose the spread of dictatorships and communism out of principle.
Um...the entire base of their popularity is opposition to us. Dancing that dance is just what they want us to do Tim.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 01:23:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 01:08:28 PM
Anti-narcotic efforts.
Furthermore we should oppose the spread of dictatorships and communism out of principle.
Um...the entire base of their popularity is opposition to us. Dancing that dance is just what they want us to do Tim.
Do you mean that the majority of the people in latin america hate the US?
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 01:28:42 PM
Do you mean that the majority of the people in latin america hate the US?
They rather hate the image of us they are presented with. We are the vile imperialists who keep them down or something ridiculous like that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 01:28:42 PM
Do you mean that the majority of the people in latin america hate the US?
They rather hate the image of us they are presented with. We are the vile imperialists who keep them down or something ridiculous like that.
So, we treat them like children, just like we do with muslims.
Every man have the responsability to find out for himself whether the propaganda he is being fed is true or not. These people are to be judged by the same standards that we judge ourselves.
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
So, we treat them like children, just like we do with muslims.
More like the Israelis. We forgive them their treason because they've had a rough time of it, and shovel money at them.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 12:27:50 PM
Ecuador and Bolivia are hardly some sort of massive sphere of influence.
The full list is:
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Cuba
Nicaragua
Antigua
Dominica
St. Vincent
(formerly) Honduras
Throw in Paraguay & El Salvador who aren't officially in ALBA but might as well be. Also factor in Argentina & other governments who are more friendly to Chavez than the US and it starts to add up.
QuoteI have full confidence his system will fail. Besides what sort of activities are we doing in Latin America that can seriously be threatened by Chavez?
Well, nothing-- other than trade, drug interdiction, energy supply, and national security...
edit: I do agree with you that his system will fail... eventually. But the cost of us ignoring him may outweigh the cost of taking smart, focused action.
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
Let's be fair. Obama probably doesn't know anything about the Honduran constitution, nor does he care. He's just mouthing platitudes.
Are you kidding me? I though that the infinitely wise, educated, diplomatic Democrats knew all that stuff. It's not like they're
Republicans.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 03:03:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 12:52:44 PM
Let's be fair. Obama probably doesn't know anything about the Honduran constitution, nor does he care. He's just mouthing platitudes.
Are you kidding me? I though that the infinitely wise, educated, diplomatic Democrats knew all that stuff. It's not like they're Republicans.
Don't be ridiculous. Democrats are still Americans.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 03:03:27 PM
Are you kidding me? I though that the infinitely wise, educated, diplomatic Democrats knew all that stuff. It's not like they're Republicans.
They know about the
important stuff like healthcare and economic reform.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 02:56:15 PM
edit: I do agree with you that his system will fail... eventually. But the cost of us ignoring him may outweigh the cost of taking smart, focused action.
What sorts of actions do you have in mind?
Anyway as far as hurting our trade...well Congress has already been working hard on that by blocking our free trade agreements. Their Union masters will probably be delighted at this new Chavez thingy.
Quoteother than trade, drug interdiction, energy supply, and national security
Ok I can get the drug thing but I seriously doubt we are going to have a problem anywhere else. A couple Latin American countries are going to attack the United States somehow?
Quote from: Neil on July 08, 2009, 03:06:19 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Democrats are still Americans.
Now you're being ridiculous. The Dems came up with the idea of a mislabeled reset button as the cornerstone of our new diplomatic approach to Russia. What other evidence do you need of their diplomatic skill??
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
A couple Latin American countries are going to attack the United States somehow?
I remember people saying the same thing about muslims 8 or 9 years ago.
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 10:00:11 AM
When did that happen? And anyway, do you really think that there'd be military action over this?
a couple of days ago, there were reported border clash with troops. It haven't escalated so far, but we never know.
To answer your question, in the present context, no. With Zelaya in the country instead of out, maybe.
EDIT (links)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090705/ts_nm/us_honduras_nicaragua_sb
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
A couple Latin American countries are going to attack the United States somehow?
I remember people saying the same thing about muslims 8 or 9 years ago.
No muslim country has ever successfuly attacked the United States.
Quote from: Siege on July 08, 2009, 07:01:13 PM
I remember people saying the same thing about muslims 8 or 9 years ago.
I remember people saying the same thing about Israelis before the
USS Liberty was bombed, napalmed, torpedoed, and machine gunned.
Quote from: viper37 on July 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 08, 2009, 10:00:11 AM
When did that happen? And anyway, do you really think that there'd be military action over this?
a couple of days ago, there were reported border clash with troops. It haven't escalated so far, but we never know.
To answer your question, in the present context, no. With Zelaya in the country instead of out, maybe.
EDIT (links)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090705/ts_nm/us_honduras_nicaragua_sb
Border clash? The article only mentions movements of small groups of Nicaraguan troops inside their own borders, hardly border clashes. Besides the only source for this info is the Honduran interim government itself, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. IMO this talk of military threat is wildly overstated. How Zelaya out of the country makes hypothetical attacks less likely is lost to me, I'd rather say the opposite.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2009, 11:52:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 09:47:31 AM
Fortunately for us Chavez is an inept idiot who will dig his own grave. No reason to interrupt him ruining his prospects.
If his influence were limited to Venezuela, I'd agree with you, more or less. But I think we've underestimated his ability to impact the region. He has managed to (via influence, money, bribery, etc.) get his friends elected in other countries, and has co-opted them into his sphere of influence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas)).
We failed to contain Chavez, and I think things will get a lot worse for the US in Latin America (as well as Latin American itself) before they get better. Eventually the pendulum may swing back the other way, but as it stands we have few friendly governments in the region and quite a few who oppose us to some degree.
This I agree with and figured it was pretty obvious what the Chavez plan was and the impact he was having on some of his neighbors. Though really, I don't know significant it is or will be, or how far it can expect to go to have much impact. That's why I said that I figure there's maybe (a big maybe perhaps though) some threat of Chavez intervening in Honduras, in the name of Democracy (his style of course), to try and have a like minded President reinstated. Then Chavez could help push for changes so that Zelaya's referendum has some chance.
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2009, 02:54:21 AM
Border clash? The article only mentions movements of small groups of Nicaraguan troops inside their own borders, hardly border clashes. Besides the only source for this info is the Honduran interim government itself, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. IMO this talk of military threat is wildly overstated. How Zelaya out of the country makes hypothetical attacks less likely is lost to me, I'd rather say the opposite.
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1130265.html
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=995290
Our current DoS is a bunch of spineless bastards & the current Administration sucks at foreign policy... film at 11.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN27328207
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 09:32:06 AM
Our current DoS is a bunch of spineless bastards & the current Administration sucks at foreign policy... film at 11.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN27328207
Goddamnit!
Why won't people just do nothing when it is in their own interests?
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 09:32:06 AM
Our current DoS is a bunch of spineless bastards & the current Administration sucks at foreign policy... film at 11.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN27328207
What a crock of bs this is. Honduras was acting according to their own law, and that was trying to avoid the possibility of becoming another nation ruled by a long term, or even life time, president/dictator/what ever. And the US is moving to cut aid? Foreign policy Fail.... :mad:
Quote from: KRonn on August 28, 2009, 09:56:48 AM
What a crock of bs this is. Honduras was acting according to their own law, and that was trying to avoid the possibility of becoming another nation ruled by a long term, or even life time, president/dictator/what ever. And the US is moving to cut aid? Foreign policy Fail.... :mad:
Yep that fucking sucks. Obama loses big points for this bullshit.
I don't think we should go around cheering on Honduras but we shouldn't be forcing them to change their leader...are we trying to kiss up to Chavez?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
Yep that fucking sucks. Obama loses big points for this bullshit.
I don't think we should go around cheering on Honduras but we shouldn't be forcing them to change their leader...are we trying to kiss up to Chavez?
It's either extreme ignorance about Honduras's constitution, or an extreme desire to make other nations like us even though they never will. Or just pure leftist solidarity. Not sure which of those is worst.
:bleeding: Horrifying
Wow, it seems pretty retarded given the information presented to us.
Here's to hoping the recommendation isn't pursued. :(
Ok after calming down a reading the article I see it is just some jerks in the State Department. Ok Obama and Hillary don't do it.
Do nothing.
I would like Obama & Mr. Clinton to simply let the clock run out. Elections in November should* make the interim Micheletti government a moot point.
The reason I say "should" is that Chavez & his ilk are already making noises about how even a democratically elected president from the November election would be illegitimate if Zeleya is not returned to power.
Btw, since my visiting sister in law is living in Costa Rica (where Zelaya was initially exiled), I asked her for her take on the issue. She said, "Well, the preseedent of Honduras got keecked out because people deedn't like him, and now he wants to go back to Honduras but they won't let him."
Thanks for the insight, Meca!
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 12:54:43 PM
I would like Obama & Mr. Clinton to simply let the clock run out. Elections in November should* make the interim Micheletti government a moot point.
The reason I say "should" is that Chavez & his ilk are already making noises about how even a democratically elected president from the November election would be illegitimate if Zeleya is not returned to power.
Zeleya broke the law and was run out of the country on a rail for his actions. So, in my view, Honduras will be just fine, doing the best thing possible, as it holds the next election to pick a new President.
Zelaya broke a law which is repugnant to the most basic principles of free speech. He was removed by force and without due process of law - the Supreme Court merely ordered his arrest and detention; the military took it upon themselves to forcibly exile him, in derogation of the arrest order.
The constitution is being used as a convenient ex post legal fig leaf, nothing more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 01:07:56 PM
Zelaya broke a law which is repugnant to the most basic principles of free speech. He was removed by force and without due process of law - the Supreme Court merely ordered his arrest and detention; the military took it upon themselves to forcibly exile him, in derogation of the arrest order.
The constitution is being used as a convenient ex post legal fig leaf, nothing more.
I'm still relieved that he was removed. If not, in a few years who knows, we could have had Honduran and Venezuelan Panzer columns flowing across the US and Central American fruited plains and jungles!! :o (We need a Panzer/Tank smiley...)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 01:07:56 PM
Zelaya broke a law which is repugnant to the most basic principles of free speech. He was removed by force and without due process of law - the Supreme Court merely ordered his arrest and detention; the military took it upon themselves to forcibly exile him, in derogation of the arrest order.
The constitution is being used as a convenient ex post legal fig leaf, nothing more.
Zelaya effectively vacated his office when called for the plebiscite. He was warned not to do this but did so anyway.
Two questions for you:
1) How should this have been handled? I'm guessing you'd prefer them to simply ignore the law since you don't like it.
2) What should be done now?
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 02:12:21 PM
[1) How should this have been handled?
The supreme court issued an arrest writ. The army should have carried out the writ to the letter and brought him for arraignment. He should have been entitled to whatever presumptions and protections Honduran law allows (I assume they have some kind of presumption of innocence).
QuoteI'm guessing you'd prefer them to simply ignore the law since you don't like it.
I don't see how the military's conduct was in accordance to the law, so no that is not my preference.
Law is not self-executing; it involves process. You can't proceed directly to consequences without going through appropriate process first.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 02:12:21 PM
[1) How should this have been handled?
The supreme court issued an arrest writ. The army should have carried out the writ to the letter and brought him for arraignment. He should have been entitled to whatever presumptions and protections Honduran law allows (I assume they have some kind of presumption of innocence).
QuoteI'm guessing you'd prefer them to simply ignore the law since you don't like it.
I don't see how the military's conduct was in accordance to the law, so no that is not my preference.
Law is not self-executing; it involves process. You can't proceed directly to consequences without going through appropriate process first.
Such as the Legislature voting to impeach a President and replace him with the VP? Oh wait, the honduran parliament did that. So what is your argument why he should remain President again? Oh it is because that would mean the Obamateur is a patsy for hugo Chavez and you can't have him look bad.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:14:53 PM
Law is not self-executing; it involves process. You can't proceed directly to consequences without going through appropriate process first.
Then tell me what the process is, according to the Honduran constitution. I might agree that Zelaya should have been held for trial for the other charges (treason, etc.), but his removal from office was appropriate.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Such as the Legislature voting to impeach a President and replace him with the VP? Oh wait, the honduran parliament did that. So what is your argument why he should remain President again? Oh it is because that would mean the Obamateur is a patsy for hugo Chavez and you can't have him look bad.
My understanding is that there was no impeachment procedure at all - the secretary of the legislature simply read a bogus resignation letter and session and the Congress then declared Michetti president.
Moreover all this happened AFTER the miliary through Zelaya out of the country, so logically it could not justify the military's actions.
I don't know why you keep bringing Obama and Chanvez into this, but it certainly doesn't explain your enthusiasm for what it pretty obviously a garden variety banana republic coup dressed up in thin legalisms concocted after the fact - i.e. the sort of stunt Chavez used to pull back in the day.
Finally, I think it is worth saying again that although I don't think Article 239 provides adequate legal justification for what happened, the fact remains that Article 239 - which provides for the deprivation of certain civil rights for engaging in certain kinds of political speech - is utterly repugnant to the notion of a free society, and that those who would use such a provision to justify their actions should be ashamed of themselves.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:14:53 PM
Law is not self-executing; it involves process. You can't proceed directly to consequences without going through appropriate process first.
Then tell me what the process is, according to the Honduran constitution. I might agree that Zelaya should have been held for trial for the other charges (treason, etc.), but his removal from office was appropriate.
The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant - so clearly they had some kind of procedure in mind. How do you impeach the elected chief executive of a state without an impeachment proceeding? If the constitution does not specifically provide procedures, than the default should be to the normal procedures used to determine other violations of the law.
Absent some kind of objective process for determining legal violations, rule of law is a fiction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
If the constitution does not specifically provide procedures, than the default should be to the normal procedures used to determine other violations of the law.
No, it's a matter for the Honduran Supreme Court to decide, and they apparently seem okay with it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
If the constitution does not specifically provide procedures, than the default should be to the normal procedures used to determine other violations of the law.
No, it's a matter for the Honduran Supreme Court to decide, and they apparently seem okay with it.
Remember, in MM's world Supreme Court decisions are only the final word on the law when the decisions are left-wing. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
If the constitution does not specifically provide procedures, than the default should be to the normal procedures used to determine other violations of the law.
No, it's a matter for the Honduran Supreme Court to decide, and they apparently seem okay with it.
I could care less what they are OK with. A court that renders some kind of view without one of the parties being allowed to be there or present a defense cannot be taken seriously.
I don;t question that as a practical matter, Zelaya is out and the matter is closed. But if the question is whether outside observers should accord some kind of legitimacy to this coup or view at as the normal workings of a proper democratic process in accordance to the rule of law, there is no question. This was not a legitimate transfer of power by any reasonable standard.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:42:40 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing Obama and Chavez into this,
Pretty sure both are injecting themselves into the debate by insisting that the Hondurans put Zelaya back in power.
it would be nice if MM could bring himself to critizise Zelaya's gross violations of the law in an attempt to set himself up as dictator for life.
But apparently we need to focus our criticism on the attempt of all the other institutions of democracy to defend their democracy rather on the tyrant that sought to destroy it. Claiming that the actions by the legislature, the Supreme Court, the Attorney general, and the armed forces were all illegitimate and Zelaya who was trying to cook up a phony and illegal referendum to stay in power should be returned to power so he can continue is laughable.
Well, it's still a step up from you defending Al Qaeda, at least.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 04:09:25 PM
it would be nice if MM could bring himself to critizise Zelaya's gross violations of the law in an attempt to set himself up as dictator for life.
I don't know anything about Zelaya, except that he has been accused of many violations. If true he should be held accountable. There are appropriate procedures for doing that, and it is plainly apparent that none of those procedures were followed.
QuoteWell, it's still a step up from you defending Al Qaeda, at least.
You are predictable if nothing else, the weaker your position, the more heated and overblown your rhetoric.
Quote from: Hansmeister
Well, it's still a step up from you defending Al Qaeda, at least.
:huh: When was this?
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 04:02:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:42:40 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing Obama and Chavez into this,
Pretty sure both are injecting themselves into the debate by insisting that the Hondurans put Zelaya back in power.
That may be so, but my own view has nothing to do with whatever Obama or Chavez happen to think.
My opinion of Chavez in particular should be clear to anyone around here, so obviously I have no interest in defending his positions, whatever they may be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2009, 04:12:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister
Well, it's still a step up from you defending Al Qaeda, at least.
:huh: When was this?
When he was defending Osama Bin Laden's right to make phone calls without the calls being intercepted by the NSA. Of course my rhetoric was overblown, he wasn't pro-Al Qaeda, he was just anti-Bush. To him the Al Qaeda was just the lesser of two evils.
Funny thing that after getting all exercised about Osama Bin Laden's privacy rights being violated he doesn't seem to care about the massive violations of the privacy rights violations of Americans that the Obama administration is attempting. The health care bill authorizes the WH to monitor everyone's personal finances as well as everyone's health care records without a warrant and that doesn't seem to bother him at all. But listening to Osama's phone calls without a warrant - what an outrage!
Oh, I didn't even mention Obama's attempts to gain the power to take control of the internet.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 04:21:31 PM
Oh, I didn't even mention Obama's attempts to gain the power to take control of the internet.
Yeah, that's a real gem. Imagine the outcry if the GOP were trying to pass this with teh Boosh in power.
Linky for anyone not familiar: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
:tinfoil:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 04:27:15 PM
:tinfoil:
Actually my point is that your positions are based entirely on political partisanship and not on some fidelity towards the law. I'm still waiting for you to denounce eric holder for his dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers, oops I mean licensed Democratic poll watchers, in the voter intimidation case after there was already a default judgement against them.
I mean you ranted for years at the politizisation of the Bush Justice Dep't, surely you would condemn are far stronger case for illegitimate politicization of justice.
Of course when I challenged you last time on that all I heard was crickets chirping.
Similarly here, your defense of Zelaya is purely political, and not out of any sense of fidelity to the law, I doubt you're capable of that. That being said, if I were ever guilty of murder I'd hire you in a nanosecond.
Hans if you want me to comment on something all you have to do is ask. Ideally politely, but that may be asking too much.
If you want my opinion on the Rockefeller-Snowe bill, the answer is that I don't like it and I oppose it. See that was easy.
I don't know anything about the Holder issue you mentioned, but if you cite me, I'd be happy to give a view. i do respect Holder as a lawyer, but he is an AG now, and AG's are often up to no good. Something in the water.
Frankly I couldn't give a rat's ass about Zelaya and I don't spend much time worrying about the fate of constitutional governance in Honduras. If Zelaya were to be banned for life, I could care less. But I do think it is absurd to pretend that a military coup is something else, just because the coup plotters happened to have the presence of mind to hire a PR guy that knows how to make a legal citation.
I already had covered it before:
QuoteEXCLUSIVE: No. 3 at Justice OK'd Panther reversal
Jerry Seper (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:
Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.
The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.
Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.
The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.
Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.
She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.
Questions about how high inside the department the decision to drop the case went have persisted in Congress and in the media for weeks.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants."
"As a result, the department dismissed those claims," she said. "We are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote."
While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness, department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the information was "privileged," according to congressional correspondence with the department.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.
"Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case?" Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven."
Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate with Congress. "The Department responded to an earlier letter from Congressman Wolf in an effort to address his questions. Following that letter, the Department agreed to a meeting with Congressman Wolf and career attorneys, in which they made a good-faith effort to respond to his inquiries about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case."
Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol Hill on Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns about the case.
The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns about the case or pressured the department to drop it.
Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was "not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint."
She said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has consistently argued that the department should bring more voter intimidation cases, adding that it was "disconcerting" that it did not do so.
Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections. He authorized a delay to give department officials more time to decide what to do, said officials familiar with the case but not authorized to discuss it publicly. He eventually approved the decision to drop charges against three of the four defendants, they said.
At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of its members accused in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged in a civil complaint with intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing a 2-foot-long nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. Authorities said a third NBPP member "managed, directed and endorsed the behavior."
The election-day incident gained national attention when it was captured by a voter-fraud citizen activist group on videotape and distributed on YouTube (below).
None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any appearance in court.
"Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process," said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush administration political appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the time the case was filed. "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously."
Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government work, said she personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and approved its filing in federal court. She said the complaint had been the subject of numerous reviews and discussions with the career lawyers.
Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the time and was not involved in the decision to file the original complaint.
A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.
"We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well-known group with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined with the brandishing of a weapon at the entrance to a polling place, constitutes a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits types of intimidation, threats and coercion," the memo said.
The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Section; Robert Popper, deputy chief of the section; J. Christian Adams, trial attorney and lead lawyer in the case; and Spencer R. Fisher, law clerk. None of the four has made themselves available for comment.
Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the case.
"If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable?" Mr. Wolf asked.
Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to concerns the congressman had about the Philadelphia incident did not alleviate his concerns.
"The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department," Mr. Smith said.
Mr. Smith asked the department's Office on Inspector General to investigate the matter, and the request was referred to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
Lawmakers aren't alone in the concerns.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great confusion," since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election."
"Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , " the letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely — that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them."
The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line attorneys highlights sensitivities that have remained inside the department since Bush administration political appointees ignored or reversed their career counterparts on some issues and some U.S. attorneys were fired for what Congress concluded were political reasons.
Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to dispel any notion that politics was involved. He argued that the department dropped charges against three of the four defendants "because the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them. He said the decision was made after a "careful and through review of the matter " by Ms. King. He said:
• While the NBPP made statements and posted notice that more than 300 of its members would be deployed at polling places throughout the United States during the Nov. 4 elections, the statement and posting did not say any of them would display a weapon or otherwise break the law.
• While the complaint charged that the NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz endorsed the activities at the polling places, the evidence was "equivocal" since both later disavowed what happened in Philadelphia and suspended that city's chapter after the incident.
• The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because police who responded to the polling place ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Mr. Jackson to stay. He also noted that the department approved "appropriately tailored injunctive relief" against Mr. Samir Shabazz for his use of the nightstick.
The injunction prohibits Mr. Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler said the department "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."
On its Web page, the NBPP said the Philadelphia chapter was suspended from operations and would not be recognized until further notice. It said the organization did not condone or promote the carrying of nightsticks or any kind of weapon at any polling place.
"We are intelligent enough to understand that a polling place is a sensitive site and all actions must be carried out in a civilized and lawful manner," it said.
Witnesses who supported the Justice Department case said they were surprised by the reversal.
Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, "Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man."
Mr. Morse, a University of Pennsylvania alumnus, said he was "outraged" that the complaint was dismissed, saying he hoped Democrats would join Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf in attempting to ensure that the incident "doesn't become a partisan issue, but rather an issue of right vs. wrong."
Chris Hill, national director of operations for a Gathering of Eagles, an organization dedicated to the support of U.S. troops, said the NBPP members visibly intimidated voters with racial slurs as they tried to enter the building.
Mr. Hill, a U.S. Army veteran who also served as a Philadelphia poll watcher for Republicans, said several voters at the location said they were afraid. He said the NBPP members tried to deny him access to the poll although he was a certified poll watcher, telling him, "White power don't rule here."
A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, Larry and Angela Counts, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were scared, worried about their safety and concerned about leaving the polling place at the end of the day because of the actions of the NBPP members. Mrs. Counts said she wondered whether someone might "bomb the place" and Mr. Counts said the NBPP members called him a "race traitor," the memo said.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered default judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after ordering them to plead or otherwise defend themselves. They refused to appear in court or file motions in answer to the government's complaint. Two weeks later, the judge ordered the Justice Department to file its motions for default judgments by May 1 — a ruling that showed the government had won its case.
The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking comment.
On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during the tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line lawyers tried to persuade their bosses to proceed with the case.
The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for a second opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn't even reached the appeals process.
Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.
She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the "paramilitary style intimidation of voters" at polling places elsewhere and Justice could make a "reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should." She noted that the complaint's purpose was to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" while leaving open "ample opportunity for political expression."
An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to be "sufficient to support" the injunctions sought by the career lawyers.
"The government's predominant interest ... is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote," she said.
The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were ordered to drop the case.
Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll watcher in Philadelphia, said after the complaint was dropped, he called Mr. Adams to find out why. He said he was told the decision "came as a surprise to all of us" and that the career lawyers working on the case feared that the failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act "would embolden other abuses in the future."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 04:52:46 PM
Frankly I couldn't give a rat's ass about Zelaya and I don't spend much time worrying about the fate of constitutional governance in Honduras. If Zelaya were to be banned for life, I could care less. But I do think it is absurd to pretend that a military coup is something else, just because the coup plotters happened to have the presence of mind to hire a PR guy that knows how to make a legal citation.
So now the Honduran Supreme Court is a PR guy? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 04:52:46 PM
But I do think it is absurd to pretend that a military coup is something else, just because the coup plotters happened to have the presence of mind to hire a PR guy that knows how to make a legal citation.
So, if an american president were to try to stay in the White House after his 2 terms, and the US military were to remove him, it would be a military coup?
The story is a little misleading because it hides the ball on the fact that they got an injunction against one of the defendants.
I agree that it is more than a little strange to drop a case where the judge has invited you to make a motion for default judgment though, and even more suspicious that the office seems to have closed ranks in terms of refusing to give any further explanation for such a strange decision.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 05:03:15 PM
So now the Honduran Supreme Court is a PR guy? :huh:
The Supreme court didn't cite art 239 in its arrest order.
I don't really blame the Court - they were basically presented with a fait accompli by the military and took the easiest of bad options. Again it doesn't change the reality of what happened.
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 05:12:20 PM
So, if an american president were to try to stay in the White House after his 2 terms, and the US military were to remove him, it would be a military coup?
Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises.
A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 05:57:54 PM
Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises.
A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.
You're stretching a bit on your analogy Joan. The Honduran counterpart of the Senate vote on high crimes and misdemeanors is the Supreme Court decision.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2009, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 05:57:54 PM
Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises.
A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.
You're stretching a bit on your analogy Joan. The Honduran counterpart of the Senate vote on high crimes and misdemeanors is the Supreme Court decision.
That and the US Constitution doesn't list perjury as a reason as a reason for removal from office.
Quote from: sbr on August 28, 2009, 07:34:30 PM
That and the US Constitution doesn't list perjury as a reason as a reason for removal from office.
I dunno. I'd consider perjury a high misdemeanor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 05:57:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 05:12:20 PM
So, if an american president were to try to stay in the White House after his 2 terms, and the US military were to remove him, it would be a military coup?
Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises.
A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.
You are so full of shit.
What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure you would support this president depending of wheather he was democrat or republican.
I know your type. We have plenty of weak lefti jews like you in Israel. They want the palestinians from the territories to vote in our elections. They are always trying to take people like me to court for waging war on Israel's sworn enemies. They are weak, and use the judicial system as a tool to maintain the alpha males like me under their boot.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 04:37:29 PM
Actually my point is that your positions are based entirely on political partisanship and not on some fidelity towards the law.
POT, MEET KETTLE.
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.
Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 28, 2009, 04:37:29 PM
Actually my point is that your positions are based entirely on political partisanship and not on some fidelity towards the law. I'm still waiting for you to denounce eric holder for his dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers, oops I mean licensed Democratic poll watchers, in the voter intimidation case after there was already a default judgement against them.
I mean you ranted for years at the politizisation of the Bush Justice Dep't, surely you would condemn are far stronger case for illegitimate politicization of justice.
Of course when I challenged you last time on that all I heard was crickets chirping.
Similarly here, your defense of Zelaya is purely political, and not out of any sense of fidelity to the law, I doubt you're capable of that. That being said, if I were ever guilty of murder I'd hire you in a nanosecond.
Whether or not the bolded part is true, a coup d'etat is actually
more illegal than what Zelaya did. He was trying to go through the channels, even if only to manipulate them.
Quote from: Fireblade on August 28, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.
Illegally? If the constitution can be altered through voter referendum, it was legal. Manipulative, devious, possibly even despicable, but legal. Don't confuse legal with ethical.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2009, 04:02:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:42:40 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing Obama and Chavez into this,
Pretty sure both are injecting themselves into the debate by insisting that the Hondurans put Zelaya back in power.
Also the UN, the EU, the OAS, UNASUR, MERCOSUR...everybody and their dog was demanding Honduras to restore Zelaya as President back in the day. I don't know how the situation evolved, as I haven't been following it closely, but AFAIK both the USA and the EU, as well as the World Bank (that notorious haven of revolutionaires) were cutting aid to Honduras until the situation was resolved.
Quote from: Fireblade on August 28, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.
Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.
Nope, not even that. He was trying to make a non binding poll in order to decide if in the scheduled November elections would have a fourth ballot to ask if the Constitution should be amended (it also has to be said that the current Honduran Constitution, drafted in'82, was already ammended more than 20 times in the meanwhile), wanting to reform obsolete articles on it, of which the presidential term limit was said to be one of them. If he got away with the june poll, Zelaya would still have many more hurdles to pass before effectively amending the Constitution, it was not a straight forward thing.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 29, 2009, 07:59:13 AM
Whether or not the bolded part is true, a coup d'etat is actually more illegal than what Zelaya did. He was trying to go through the channels, even if only to manipulate them.
"Going through channels" would have meant Zelaya waits until he's out of office before proposing a referendum to change the constitution. "Coup d'etat" would have meant the army imposed a new ruler on Honduras by fiat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2009, 09:34:40 AM
"Going through channels" would have meant Zelaya waits until he's out of office before proposing a referendum to change the constitution. "Coup d'etat" would have meant the army imposed a new ruler on Honduras by fiat.
I don't see where the law barred Zelaya from making the proposal while in office. Again, don't confuse "legal" with "ethical." He was likely trying to exploit the system, but it still sounds as if it was within the bounds of the Honduran constitution for him to do so. Also, show me where the Honduran legislature was authorized to remove him from office as a unilateral action.
I'm convinced that the government was in the right ethically, but not legally, to try to prevent Zelaya from exploiting the system, but Zelaya's actions regarding the proposed referendum were legal; they just weren't ethical.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 29, 2009, 11:39:52 AM
I don't see where the law barred Zelaya from making the proposal while in office. Again, don't confuse "legal" with "ethical." He was likely trying to exploit the system, but it still sounds as if it was within the bounds of the Honduran constitution for him to do so. Also, show me where the Honduran legislature was authorized to remove him from office as a unilateral action.
I'm convinced that the government was in the right ethically, but not legally, to try to prevent Zelaya from exploiting the system, but Zelaya's actions regarding the proposed referendum were legal; they just weren't ethical.
I don't think the legislature is authorized to remove him. I think they're authorized to appoint an interim successor after the court has removed him from office. Back at the beginning of the thread there was mention of the Honduran law which forbids current office holders from proposing changing that clause.
Quote"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."
Here you go.
Interesting...
Since, apparently, the only clauses of the Honduran Constitution that cannot be amended by the Honduran Congress are those relating to the country's borders, the presidential term limit, and the requirement that administrations must succeed each other in a Republican form of government one has to wonder at Zelaya's motives for trying to set the wheels in motion for the establishment of a Constitutional Convention with his "fourth ballot box", or even his request of a referendum to see if the voters should have the "fourth ballot box". I can't imagine that he wanted to give away territory, so it has to be either the term limit or succession clauses. Meaning, he has immediately fallen foul of article 239 and has no legal option but to resign effective immediately.
Moreover, since a 2/3 majority of the Honduran Congress is required for a referendum to be placed before the people, and the Honduran Congress had voted the equivalent of "No Way, Jose!" then the president is then issuing illegal orders when he orders the army to start distributing ballot boxes for the purpose of his referendum.
While I am a little disturbed that the Honduran Supreme Court issued orders to the Army rather than the civil police to rectify the situation, that is their choice.
Zelaya has been replaced by a member of his own party, and it appears that Honduras will hold the next presidential electrion on schedule. While the frothings of Chavez and certain others make diverting reading, they seem to have only the vaguest connection to the truth of the situation in Honduras.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 29, 2009, 02:18:32 PM
Zelaya has been replaced by a member of his own party, and it appears that Honduras will hold the next presidential electrion on schedule. While the frothings of Chavez and certain others make diverting reading, they seem to have only the vaguest connection to the truth of the situation in Honduras.
I do find it rather frustrating that people are calling an illegal coup what in fact were actions to prevent an illegal coup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2009, 06:06:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 05:57:54 PM
You're stretching a bit on your analogy Joan. The Honduran counterpart of the Senate vote on high crimes and misdemeanors is the Supreme Court decision.
The problem is that the military violated that Supreme Court decision. The fact the the Court later decided not to undo the fait accompli does not mean the original action was proper.
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
You are so full of shit.
What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure you would support this president depending of wheather he was democrat or republican.
I know your type. We have plenty of weak lefti jews like you in Israel. They want the palestinians from the territories to vote in our elections. They are always trying to take people like me to court for waging war on Israel's sworn enemies. They are weak, and use the judicial system as a tool to maintain the alpha males like me under their boot.
I don't know your type - I decided to study law instead of psychiatry.
Quote from: Fireblade on August 28, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 28, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.
Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.
that was the claim, but Zelaya denied it and his denial was facially plausible. There never was a determination whether Zelaya's action actually violated Art 239. In fact the Supreme Court's order failed to even mention that provision.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 29, 2009, 02:18:32 PM
one has to wonder at Zelaya's motives for trying to set the wheels in motion for the establishment of a Constitutional Convention with his "fourth ballot box", or even his request of a referendum to see if the voters should have the "fourth ballot box". I can't imagine that he wanted to give away territory, so it has to be either the term limit or succession clauses.
If one has to "wonder" and "imagine about "motives" then its hardly an open and shut case, is it? Due process of law exists in part so that unelected generals can't go around deposing elected heads of states because of what they are imagining about their motives.
QuoteMoreover, since a 2/3 majority of the Honduran Congress is required for a referendum to be placed before the people, and the Honduran Congress had voted the equivalent of "No Way, Jose!" then the president is then issuing illegal orders when he orders the army to start distributing ballot boxes for the purpose of his referendum.
That would justify the army disobeying the order, or local officials simply tossing out the boxes, or ignoring the result of as non-binding (which is exactly what Zelaya termed it). It does not justify forcible removal of the President without any process of law.
QuoteWhile I am a little disturbed that the Honduran Supreme Court issued orders to the Army rather than the civil police to rectify the situation, that is their choice.
What I find more troublesome than that is that the Army violated the Court's order, which is kind of a problem for everyone desperately hanging onto the Court's pronouncement for the fig leaf of legitmacy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 09:36:05 AM
that was the claim, but Zelaya denied it and his denial was facially plausible. There never was a determination whether Zelaya's action actually violated Art 239.
Oh, come on. It plainly did.
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2009, 09:53:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 09:36:05 AM
that was the claim, but Zelaya denied it and his denial was facially plausible. There never was a determination whether Zelaya's action actually violated Art 239.
Oh, come on. It plainly did.
Disagree - a non-binding poll on whether to have a constitutional convention is not the same as a specific proposal to change a particular article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8335241.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8335241.stm)
QuoteCongress considers Honduras deal
The Honduran Congress has been asked to approve a deal which might lead to the return to power of ousted President Manual Zelaya.
The accord has been signed by teams representing Mr Zelaya and the interim government which came to power in June.
The deal would create a power-sharing government and require the bitter political rivals to recognise the result of November's presidential poll.
Meanwhile, the US is lifting visa curbs on Honduras after Friday's agreement.
The sanction was imposed amid international condemnation of Mr Zelaya's removal.
But officials said the US embassy would start issuing visas again on Monday.
The president was forced out of the country on 28 June.
His critics said he was seeking to amend the constitution to remove the current one-term limit on serving as president, and pave the way for his re-election.
The BBC's Central America correspondent Stephen Gibbs says the Honduran congress - which in June voted to remove Mr Zelaya from power - now looks set to be instrumental in bringing him back.
It will vote after the Supreme Court gives a non-binding opinion on the deal, news agencies report.
No clear timetable has been laid out for when the vote will actually happen, but the ousted president has indicated that he expects the entire process to take about a week.
Mr Zelaya is making it clear that until every detail of his reinstatement has been pinned down, he will not be leaving the capital's Brazilian embassy, where he is currently sheltering, our correspondent says.
Many Hondurans are, however, already expressing relief that the crisis which has overshadowed their country for the last four months might almost be over.
Our correspondent says the key detail of the arrangement is that Mr Zelaya comes back to power, so that Honduras' scheduled November elections - to decide who will replace him - are therefore deemed valid.
But it is not perhaps the comeback which President Zelaya once promised, our correspondent adds.
From exile he had suggested that a popular uprising would restore him to office.
In the end, it seems that more mundane economic realities, and some straight talking by American diplomats, persuaded the government which forced him out, to relent, our correspondent says.
Quote from: sbr on October 31, 2009, 12:36:35 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8335241.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8335241.stm)
QuoteCongress considers Honduras deal
The Honduran Congress has been asked to approve a deal which might lead to the return to power of ousted President Manual Zelaya.
The accord has been signed by teams representing Mr Zelaya and the interim government which came to power in June.
The deal would create a power-sharing government and require the bitter political rivals to recognise the result of November's presidential poll.
Meanwhile, the US is lifting visa curbs on Honduras after Friday's agreement.
The sanction was imposed amid international condemnation of Mr Zelaya's removal.
But officials said the US embassy would start issuing visas again on Monday.
The president was forced out of the country on 28 June.
His critics said he was seeking to amend the constitution to remove the current one-term limit on serving as president, and pave the way for his re-election.
The BBC's Central America correspondent Stephen Gibbs says the Honduran congress - which in June voted to remove Mr Zelaya from power - now looks set to be instrumental in bringing him back.
It will vote after the Supreme Court gives a non-binding opinion on the deal, news agencies report.
No clear timetable has been laid out for when the vote will actually happen, but the ousted president has indicated that he expects the entire process to take about a week.
Mr Zelaya is making it clear that until every detail of his reinstatement has been pinned down, he will not be leaving the capital's Brazilian embassy, where he is currently sheltering, our correspondent says.
Many Hondurans are, however, already expressing relief that the crisis which has overshadowed their country for the last four months might almost be over.
Our correspondent says the key detail of the arrangement is that Mr Zelaya comes back to power, so that Honduras' scheduled November elections - to decide who will replace him - are therefore deemed valid.
But it is not perhaps the comeback which President Zelaya once promised, our correspondent adds.
From exile he had suggested that a popular uprising would restore him to office.
In the end, it seems that more mundane economic realities, and some straight talking by American diplomats, persuaded the government which forced him out, to relent, our correspondent says.
Wow, that SUCKS for those who were insisting that Zelaya had been legally deposed and exiled - as well as those who insisted that Obama and Clinton, by going along with every credible foreign NGO and government (and MM, btw) were incompetent.
Good to see that the Honduran Congress isn't as blinded by ideology as many Languishites are.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 12:59:56 PMWow, that SUCKS for those who were insisting that Zelaya had been legally deposed and exiled - as well as those who insisted that Obama and Clinton, by going along with every credible foreign NGO and government (and MM, btw) were incompetent.
Good to see that the Honduran Congress isn't as blinded by ideology as many Languishites are.
it sure sucks that the Obamateur celebrates his first forign policy victory by undermining democracy in honduras to reinstate an anti-amrican thug to power in order to appease Hugo Chavez. Too bad for if the Law Library of Congress has found that his removal from power was legal and constitutional http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html) good for them to refuse to retract their findings when attacked by John Kerry. All we had to do to force Honduras to reinstate their unpopular and criminal president was to announce that we wouldn't recognize the election in November otherwise. Bravo, what a victory for democracy! The Obamateur loved the Iranian election and was opposed to free elections in Honduras. Welcome to the anti-liberal world view of Obama.
The fact that Iran has not given in to international pressure on their nuclear program shows they were right all along.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 01:46:41 PM
it sure sucks that the Obamateur celebrates his first forign policy victory by undermining democracy in honduras to reinstate an anti-amrican thug to power in order to appease Hugo Chavez.
:lmfao: Classic Hanian hysteria! excellent, my man. Keep it up; absurdity never gets old when
you do it.
QuoteToo bad for if the Law Library of Congress has found that his removal from power was legal and constitutional http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html) good for them to refuse to retract their findings when attacked by John Kerry.
I asked a librarian, and she said your librarian is wrong. I guess the librarian consensus won't be forthcoming soon, so let's leave librarians out of the discussion.
QuoteAll we had to do to force Honduras to reinstate their unpopular and criminal president was to announce that we wouldn't recognize the election in November otherwise. Bravo, what a victory for democracy! The Obamateur loved the Iranian election and was opposed to free elections in Honduras. Welcome to the anti-liberal world view of Obama.
I don't understand why and when you announced that you would not recognize the November 29th elections. Not even the Obama Administration did that. I think we should call you "The Hamateur" from now on, as you are even more anti-liberal than Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:07:06 PM
The fact that Iran has not given in to international pressure on their nuclear program shows they were right all along.
:huh:
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 08:27:47 PMI don't understand why and when you announced that you would not recognize the November 29th elections. Not even the Obama Administration did that. I think we should call you "The Hamateur" from now on, as you are even more anti-liberal than Obama.
You fail again.
QuoteU.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote
Honduras' interim President Roberto Micheletti,attends a meeting of workers at the presidential house in Tegucigalpa, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009. Foreign ministers from seven nations launched a direct, high-profile attempt Monday to persuade Honduras' interim government to restore ousted President Manuel Zelaya. (AP Photo/Fernando Antonio)
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 4, 2009
The U.S. government on Thursday toughened its stance against Honduras's coup leaders and supporters, threatening to put them "in a box" by not recognizing the winner of a presidential election set for November.
The de facto government had hoped that the election would provide an end to the crisis that has gripped the Central American country since the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The balloting had been scheduled well before Zelaya was detained and whisked out of the country by the military.
But U.S. officials said for the first time that they would continue to shun the country unless Honduran leaders went back to a negotiated plan that would allow the return of Zelaya with limited powers until the expiration of his term in December.
"Based on conditions as they currently exist, we cannot recognize the results of this election. So for the de facto regime, they're now in a box," said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. "And they will have to sign on to the San Jose accords to get out of the box." He was referring to the plan for Zelaya's return, which was negotiated in the Costa Rican capital.
The announcement amounted to a gamble that the threat would finally force the de facto government to back down. So far, that government, led by longtime congressman Roberto Micheletti, has resisted intense international pressure, both economic and political. Its members argue that Zelaya's removal was legal because he had violated the constitution by organizing a referendum that could have allowed him to evade the one-term limit for the presidency.
But the reasons for the coup supporters' vehemence go deeper: They fear that the leftist Zelaya would have introduced the socialist-style agenda promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a Zelaya ally and leader of an anti-American bloc in the hemisphere.
"This is a tough call, because I think there are no white hats in this story," said Ted Piccone, a specialist in U.S.-Latin American relations at the Brookings Institution. "But there is a clear bright line around the militarily forced exile of a democratically elected president, and so that has to be addressed."
However, he and other analysts said, if the interim government does not change its stance, the decision not to recognize the election could only deepen the crisis.
The State Department's action "limits our options, a violation of the first law of diplomacy, by taking off the table the one means by which the crisis could naturally be resolved," said Eric Farnsworth, a Latin America expert at the Council of the Americas, a U.S.-based business group.
The announcement came as the State Department also formally terminated about $30 million in aid to the Honduran government that had been suspended. Authorities also said they were examining revoking more visas of Hondurans who participated in, or supported, the coup.
The announcement triggered new opposition from Republicans in Congress who have denounced the Obama administration's policy on Honduras and held up some diplomatic appointments in protest.
"The U.S. approach to friends and foes is completely backwards. While appeasing the enemies of freedom worldwide, we punish those in Honduras struggling to preserve the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and democratic values," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) said in a statement.
The U.S. moves were applauded by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has encouraged a negotiated settlement. "The coup regime has engaged in undemocratic practices that cast a dark shadow over elections scheduled for November. Those elections will lack legitimacy unless the regime embraces and faithfully implements the San Jose Accord," he said in a statement.
Major Latin American countries have said they would not recognize the results of the November election unless the coup is reversed.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 08:27:47 PMI don't understand why and when you announced that you would not recognize the November 29th elections. Not even the Obama Administration did that. I think we should call you "The Hamateur" from now on, as you are even more anti-liberal than Obama.
You fail again.
QuoteU.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote
Not I who is failing here, Hamateur.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:07:06 PM
The fact that Iran has not given in to international pressure on their nuclear program shows they were right all along.
:huh:
I
think that it's intended as a sarcastic retort to the idea that the white minority governments of Rhodesia and South Africa were wrong to give in to international pressure and step aside for black majority governments--i.e., if it's "wrong" for governments to give in to international pressure, the Iranian government must be "right" for not doing so.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 09:45:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 08:27:47 PMI don't understand why and when you announced that you would not recognize the November 29th elections. Not even the Obama Administration did that. I think we should call you "The Hamateur" from now on, as you are even more anti-liberal than Obama.
You fail again.
QuoteU.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote
Not I who is failing here, Hamateur.
:lmfao:
tjhis is the best you can do? I guess since Obama merely threatebn to not recognize democratic elections it is all a-ok.
:lmfao:
Quote from: dps on October 31, 2009, 10:11:25 PM
I think that it's intended as a sarcastic retort to the idea that the white minority governments of Rhodesia and South Africa were wrong to give in to international pressure and step aside for black majority governments--i.e., if it's "wrong" for governments to give in to international pressure, the Iranian government must be "right" for not doing so.
It was a sarcastic retort to the idea that the Honduran government giving in to international pressure proves that their prior actions were illegitimate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2009, 12:00:29 AM
It was a sarcastic retort to the idea that the Honduran government giving in to international pressure proves that their prior actions were illegitimate.
Whose idea was that?
I also think that talking about "the Honduran government" in a case like this is kinda silly. Which Honduran government? What parts of that government?
I don't think anyone bar the Honduran Army is arguing seriously that the actions of the Army in exiling the country's president were constitutional - and I don't think even
they are
seriously arguing it. I retrospect, I suspect almost everyone in any branch of the Honduran government wishes they had been less hasty.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 01:46:41 PM
it sure sucks that the Obamateur celebrates his first forign policy victory by undermining democracy in honduras to reinstate an anti-amrican thug to power in order to appease Hugo Chavez. Too bad for if the Law Library of Congress has found that his removal from power was legal and constitutional http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/78045.html) good for them to refuse to retract their findings when attacked by John Kerry. All we had to do to force Honduras to reinstate their unpopular and criminal president was to announce that we wouldn't recognize the election in November otherwise. Bravo, what a victory for democracy! The Obamateur loved the Iranian election and was opposed to free elections in Honduras. Welcome to the anti-liberal world view of Obama.
The American pro-authoritarian right . . . supporting military dictatorships in Latin America since 1905.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2009, 12:00:29 AM
It was a sarcastic retort to the idea that the Honduran government giving in to international pressure proves that their prior actions were illegitimate.
And here I was thinking that the Honduran military's illegitimate actions were what gave rise to the international pressure.
I like that: "the Hamateur".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2009, 12:06:02 PM
And here I was thinking that the Honduran military's illegitimate actions were what gave rise to the international pressure.
Why in the world were you thinking that? The OAS demanded that the forrmer president be reinstated, which would lead most people to suspect that his removal from office was in some way connected to their ire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2009, 12:06:02 PM
And here I was thinking that the Honduran military's illegitimate actions were what gave rise to the international pressure.
Why in the world were you thinking that? The OAS demanded that the forrmer president be reinstated, which would lead most people to suspect that his removal from office was in some way connected to their ire.
It would also lead most people to believe that the OAS was of the opinion that the removal was not legitimate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2009, 03:20:30 PM
It would also lead most people to believe that the OAS was of the opinion that the removal was not legitimate.
Anything is possible. I haven't seen any poll numbers on public perceptions of OAS motivations. But at least some people, me included, think legitimacy had little or nothing to do with it. Has the OAS published an opinion that the Honduran constitution was invalid? That the ruling of the Honduran Supreme Court was illegitimate? Unless one of those two things is true, then the demand that the former president be reinstated are not based on issues of legitimacy. I'm familiar with, and agree with, your criticism that expulsion from the country was extrajudicial. But the redress for this grievous breech is to allow him back into the country, as a private citizen, not to reinstate him in office.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 03, 2009, 12:16:06 PM
I like that: "the Hamateur".
Would work better if he was Hamilcar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2009, 03:20:30 PM
It would also lead most people to believe that the OAS was of the opinion that the removal was not legitimate.
Has the OAS published an opinion that the Honduran constitution was invalid? That the ruling of the Honduran Supreme Court was illegitimate? Unless one of those two things is true, then the demand that the former president be reinstated are not based on issues of legitimacy.
The OAS is not a court; they are not in the business of publishing opinions.
Like grumbler I can't help but notice that every single government in the free world to weigh on this matter has declared the coup improper and illegitimate. It is possible that this unanamity stems from the fact that all the governments of the free nations of the world are corrupt and have bad motives, but in my view extremely unlikely. The fact the the "Law Librarian" of the Library of Congress has a different view does not impress me; nor are the tortured legalisms that are being used sophistically to explain why having the Army physically kidnap a President with several years on his term, and bundle him out of the country without any sort of trial or due process, is a perfectly legitimate procedure consistent with a free democratic society.
You got your guy back, MM. Be happy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2009, 08:19:12 PM
The OAS is not a court; they are not in the business of publishing opinions.
Like grumbler I can't help but notice that every single government in the free world to weigh on this matter has declared the coup improper and illegitimate. It is possible that this unanamity stems from the fact that all the governments of the free nations of the world are corrupt and have bad motives, but in my view extremely unlikely. The fact the the "Law Librarian" of the Library of Congress has a different view does not impress me; nor are the tortured legalisms that are being used sophistically to explain why having the Army physically kidnap a President with several years on his term, and bundle him out of the country without any sort of trial or due process, is a perfectly legitimate procedure consistent with a free democratic society.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
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?
QuoteI 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).
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2009, 11:56:25 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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.
:huh: It's hardly breaking news, that was known since nearly the beginning. You only hear about it now?
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2009, 11:56:25 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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.
:huh: 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. ;)
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 12:30:12 PM
:huh: It's hardly breaking news, that was known since nearly the beginning. You only hear about it now?
Yup.
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2009, 04:17:16 PM
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...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2009, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 04, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
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):
Quote"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:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
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!" :lol:
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. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
and the wiki entry reads:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2009, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
and the wiki entry reads:
QuoteThe 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.
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." :lol:
It is also amusing to read the report that The Hamateur and his McClatchy buddies misinterpreted to read that "his removal from power was legal and constitutional."
Turns out, it says nothing of the kind. It merely noted that "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," which is merely a statement of opinion about what a single scholar thought was the mindset of the Honuran officials, and also noted that "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution," which means that his 'removal from office" was, in fact, unconstitutional (since the only power the Congress had was to promote the VP in the case of the "absolute inability" of the president to carry out the functions of his office, and the President was only unable to carry out his duties because of the illegal actions of the Army).
As a side note, Congress's power to interpret the Constitution can only be undertaken "in ordinary sessions in a single term, with a two-thirds vote of all its members." This requirement does not appeear to have been met, and I am surprised that Norma C. Gutiérrez, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, ignored this point.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2009, 07:40:07 PM
Point #2 isn't necessarily indicated by the article. There have been funny games played with quorum rules in American history.
Games with quorum yes. But has a senate impeachment trial ever been held in a session where a number of key senators were deliberately uninformed of the session? Indeed has any significant legislative action occurred under such conditions? This is a bird of a very different feather.
QuoteI'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).
It would matter if the question was not confined merely to the question of facial legality, yes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2009, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2009, 04:17:16 PM
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...
Yep, from the first news reports I saw and heard, I also got a very different impression and idea of how and why this occurred.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2009, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2009, 07:40:07 PM
Point #2 isn't necessarily indicated by the article. There have been funny games played with quorum rules in American history.
Games with quorum yes. But has a senate impeachment trial ever been held in a session where a number of key senators were deliberately uninformed of the session? Indeed has any significant legislative action occurred under such conditions? This is a bird of a very different feather.
QuoteI'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).
It would matter if the question was not confined merely to the question of facial legality, yes.
I guess it comes down to how legitimate you expect institutions in Honduras behave. My expectations are fairly low. An election is (apparently) going to be held less than 6 months after the removal of Zelaya, the Supreme Court signed off on the removal (although after the fact), and the legislature approved the removal (although under sketchy circumstances).
I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AMI understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.
Quote from: The Larch on November 05, 2009, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AMI understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.
And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 05, 2009, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AMI understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.
And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?
In which way was he "moving to the left"?
Quote from: The Larch on November 05, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 05, 2009, 11:10:14 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AMI understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.
And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?
In which way was he "moving to the left"?
The left? :p
As I said yesterday, I don't know anything that I haven't recently read on wikipedia or in this thread (aside from a few stray news articles that are probably even less reliable). That is how wikipedia characterized his time in office, with the adjective "sharply" included.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AM
I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
There is that, plus the idea that successive US administrations have believed that extending the rule of law was in US interests.
I think that there is no question but what Zelaya was pushing an agenda that went far beyond that of his colleages, but you cannot just kidnap and exile your duly elected President for that.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2009, 11:05:58 AM
I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.
It has been a consistent policy of the US since the end of the Cold War to oppose military coups in Latin America. Including Chavez 1992 BTW.
I think it is as simple as that.
Quote from: The Larch on November 05, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
In which way was he "moving to the left"?
Uh, pretty much every way?
QuoteZelaya: US-brokered pact for Honduran crisis fails
By JUAN ZAMORANO, Associated Press
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said Friday that a U.S.-brokered pact failed to end a four-month political crisis after a deadline for forming a unity government passed.
"The accord is dead," Zelaya told Radio Globo from "There is no sense in deceiving Hondurans."
Forged last week with the help of U.S. diplomats, the pact gave the two sides until midnight Thursday to install a government with supporters of Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president by Congress after Zelaya was ousted on June 28.
Jorge Reina, a negotiator for Zelaya, said the pact fell apart because Congress failed to vote on whether to reinstate the deposed president before the deadline for forming the unity government.
The pact did not require Zelaya's return to the presidency. It left the decision up to Congress. Zelaya interpreted that to mean that Congress had to vote on the issue by Thursday.
Supporters of Micheletti, who was named interim president by Congress after Zelaya was ousted on June 28, disputed that, saying the pact required that members of the unity Cabinet be in place by Thursday but that there was no deadline for Congress to meet.
"The de facto regime has failed to live up to the promise that, by this date, the national government would be installed. And by law, it should be presided by the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya," Reina said.
Shortly before midnight, Micheletti announced that a unity government had been created even though Zelaya had not submitted his own list of members. Micheletti said the new government was composed of candidates proposed by political parties and civic groups. He did not name the new members.
"Everybody, with the exception of Mr. Zelaya, recommended Hondurans to lead the institutions of our country as part of the new government," Micheletti said.
He said the unity government "is representative of a large ideological and political spectrum in our country and complies strictly with the agreement" brokered last week.
It was the latest setback for international efforts to resolve the Honduran standoff before Nov. 29 presidential elections, which several Latin American countries have vowed not to recognized if held under the coup-installed government.
The United States has suspended millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American nation. But Washington had hoped that having a unity government in place before the elections would end the diplomatic isolation of a country that is a traditional U.S. ally.
The elections had been scheduled before Zelaya's ouster. Neither he or Micheletti are candidates.
Hundreds of Zelaya supporters gathered outside Congress on Thursday to demand his reinstatement. The protesters said they will boycott the elections if Zelaya is not returned to power beforehand to serve out his constitutionally limited single term, which ends in January.
Reina accused Micheletti of preparing "a great electoral fraud this November."
"We completely do not recognize this electoral process," Reina said. "Elections under a dictatorship are a fraud for the people."
Soldiers flew Zelaya into exile at gunpoint over a dispute on whether to change the Honduran constitution. Opponents claimed Zelaya was trying to extend his time in office by lifting the ban on presidential re-election. Zelaya denied that was his goal.