and now.... Honduras.

[Valmy]

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.

[derspiess]

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.

[derspiess]

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!

[KRonn]

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[KRonn]

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!!       (We need a Panzer/Tank smiley...)

[derspiess]

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?

[The Minsky Moment]

[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). 

I'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.

[Hansmeister]

[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). 

I'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.

[derspiess]

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 Minsky Moment]

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[derspiess]

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.

[Hansmeister]

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. 

[The Minsky Moment]

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.