Honduras: Democratically elected president overthrown

[SethVincent]

You see, our government is a deeply corrupt one where legislators create laws to benefit their personal enterprises. But the new government is the same corrupt government we've always had......

Are you sure you don't live in America


LOL

 

[jvferrandiz]

So what is Obama doing anyway? just playing the democrat? He is condemning the coup but the US has a military base(bases) in honduras and if i am not miskaten they see the country as an strategic location right? So i don't think the idea of a populist president following Chavez ideals is something they want to deal with.

 

[yolland]

^ Obama might in the longterm prove more reconcilable to the prospect of Zelaya's continued exile (or arrest and prosecution upon return) than his public statements have suggested, but no, I don't think there's good reason to assume his condemnation of the coup was merely an act. The US does still have troops stationed at Honduras' Soto Cano airbase, but at present their operations primarily concern the 'War on Drugs' (as opposed to the 1980s, when Central America policy was Cold War-driven and primarily about containing the Sandinistas, FMLN etc., typically with little concern over human rights violations in the process). While the former objective certainly doesn't rule out the latter--e.g., 'Plan Colombia' has involved some training of Colombian forces to fight FARC, ostensibly in the context of combatting drug trafficking--it's not like they're synonymous, either; so it's quite conceivable that Obama might wish to continue the 'special relationship' with the Honduran forces (for 'War on Drugs' purposes) without simultaneously being willing to give them a green-light to meddle in Honduras' political process in the name of resisting 'chavismo.'

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

So, Zelaya said he would arrive today and a huge crowd gathered to receive him at the airport. Apparentyl, official sources say the crowd then began to jump the gates from the airport which prompted the army to open fire on the crowd. 3 dead have been reported only 1 confirmed.

 

[yolland]

There are also reports that Zelaya's plane was diverted to El Salvador as Honduran authorities refused permission to land.

 

[jvferrandiz]

Obama might in the longterm prove more reconcilable to the prospect of Zelaya's continued exile (or arrest and prosecution upon return) than his public statements have suggested, but no, I don't think there's good reason to assume his condemnation of the coup was merely an act. The US does still have troops stationed at Honduras' Soto Cano airbase, but at present their operations primarily concern the 'War on Drugs' (as opposed to the 1980s, when Central America policy was Cold War-driven and primarily about containing the Sandinistas, FMLN etc., typically with little concern over human rights violations in the process). While the former objective certainly doesn't rule out the latter--e.g., 'Plan Colombia' has involved some training of Colombian forces to fight FARC, ostensibly in the context of combatting drug trafficking--it's not like they're synonymous, either; so it's quite conceivable that Obama might wish to continue the 'special relationship' with the Honduran forces (for 'War on Drugs' purposes) without simultaneously being willing to give them a green-light to meddle in Honduras' political process in the name of resisting 'chavismo.'

I agree with that. They are basically playing both sides then, for now. Too bad the honduran government didn't seem to need any "green light" to oust the president after all.

 

[financeguy]

U.S. Misread Scale of Honduran Rift

By William Booth and Juan Forero
Washington Post, July 5



When Zelaya, 56, a wealthy rancher whose family made its fortune from timber, was elected president in 2005, he was a middle-of-the-road populist from one of Honduras's two major parties. But as his presidency progressed, Zelaya veered to the left and was in constant conflict with business groups, lawmakers from his own party, the news media and the army. "Over the last year, Zelaya's positions moved to the left. He pushed social programs and more attention for the poor who have no work," said Giuseppe Magno, the outgoing Italian ambassador. "This switch was not in line with the program he was voted in on. He was too close to Ortega and Chávez, a position the middle and upper classes did not appreciate."

But Zelaya saw it differently, often telling crowds that Honduras needed a fundamental shift to deal with poverty so grinding that 40% of the population lives on $2 a day or less. Honduras is, in fact, the third-poorest country in the hemisphere, and many residents continue to resent the often painful past involvement of the United States.

In announcing his country's affiliation with a Chávez-led alliance, Zelaya told crowds that it was designed to "make Hondurans a free people." He said that in joining the pact, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, Honduras did "not have to ask permission of any imperialists." Zelaya increasingly spoke of the two nations of Honduras, one hopelessly poor, the other wealthy and uncaring. He began to argue for "people power," a kind of direct popular democracy. When he toured the countryside, he staged rallies to ask the people what they wanted, and promised new bridges and clinics on the spot, giving away 100 Venezuelan tractors to farmers and speaking against an unnamed oligarchy he called the enemy of the people.

Zelaya angered the business community when he raised the minimum monthly wage for Hondurans by 60%. Many companies responded by firing workers. Other businesses ignored the decree.

This is one of those rare but not unheard of examples of someone who goes to the left as he gets older, isn't it?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

There are also reports that Zelaya's plane was diverted to El Salvador as Honduran authorities refused permission to land.

Not only did they refuse permission to land they also put military trucks and soldiers on the landing strip while Zelaya overflew the city trying to land. This is ridiculous.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I can't really call it a coup.

Zelaya tried to circumvent the Honduran constitution to stay in power. The Supreme court ordered the military to throw him out.

 

[purpleoscar]

You've also got the conundrum of the fact that the referendum was illegal and if they allowed it to go ahead, those who wouldn't agree wouldn't vote so the referendum would end up being a landslide win for Zelaya. Then if they arrested him afterwards and threw him in jail or deposed him the left would have a referendum result they could use. The only way I would call it a coup is if they didn't allow the leading party to rule and didn't allow elections in November. THAT would be a coup.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

It is without a doubt and by all accounts a coup.

If he had been captured, tried and actually given due process then it wouldn't be a coup. But he wasn't. He was arbitrarily captured and taken by force to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It is without a doubt and by all accounts a coup.

If he had been captured, tried and actually given due process then it wouldn't be a coup. But he wasn't. He was arbitrarily captured and taken by force to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

By what definition? There are any number of definitions for a coup, but being taken out by the order of a Supreme Court for circumventing the Constitution isn't one of them.

The Honduran Congress is the only body that can rewrite your constitution. The Supreme Court ordered the military to throw the bum out. He broke the law.

 

[yolland]

The Supreme Court didn't have the Constitutional authority to do that.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The Supreme Court didn't have the Constitutional authority to do that.

Are you sure?

Who then has the authority to toss out a lawless leader?

 

[yolland]

Their Supreme Court has the authority to strip any citizen of his or her citizenship for promoting revision of their Constitution's provisions on term limits--provided of course that said person is put on trial for that crime and shown at trial to have committed it. They didn't do this, probably because they in fact have no hard evidence that Zelaya was seeking to do so, only assumptions. Instead, he was arrested for defying their earlier order against carrying out his referendum calling for a popular vote in November on whether to hold a constitutional convention: they'd already ruled that referendum unconstitutional, on the grounds that it was a usurpation of Congress' sole authority to convene a constitutional convention. That much--the arrest and the earlier ruling--were almost certainly within the Court's authority. However, they then proceeded to order the Army to simply throw Zelaya out of the country, without first trying him for any crime punishable by that. They claimed at the time that they'd offered him the option of resigning and leaving the country rather than going on trial (he denies this), but they have no authority to make such an offer in the first place: could you imagine our government giving a President possibly guilty of impeachable crimes an option to just leave the country for good instead, to avoid being tried? This is why their actions have been roundly condemned by other governments around the world.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

They also held him at gunpoint and forced him to sign a resignation letter. This letter wasn't even used in the decree with which they stripped him of his position even though they had paraded the letter and its contents around the media. Absurd.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

TThey claimed at the time that they'd offered him the option of resigning and leaving the country rather than going on trial (he denies this), but they have no authority to make such an offer in the first place: could you imagine our government giving a President possibly guilty of impeachable crimes an option to just leave the country for good instead, to avoid being tried? This is why their actions have been roundly condemned by other governments around the world.

An impeachment trial would have made sense, I agree.

I don't think it's anyone's business in any government outside of Honduras to take sides. We saw what happened in Iran, didn't we?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I think it's a very important thing that other governments take sides. Someone's got to demand order and in this country the people in charge do what they feel like and always feel it's ok to wipe their asses with the law.

I'm glad someone else has stepped in.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think it's a very important thing that other governments take sides. Someone's got to demand order and in this country the people in charge do what they feel like and always feel it's ok to wipe their asses with the law.

I'm glad someone else has stepped in.

Sovereign nations know their political situations better than foreign governments do.

I thought Iran's elections were a sham. I think Ahmadinejad is needlessly hostile to Israel and the West. But without any desire to show any military strength, condemnation alone bears little weight.

Ron Paul was the sole dissenter on a weightless resolution condemning the Iranian elections and the crackdown on dissent that followed it. I think he had good reasoning in his dissent:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

The same principle can be applied here.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I do agree that perhaps they aren't aware about the most of the things that happen.

The problem is we do have laws that could accuse our president of illegal action. They did not follow that course of action under the basis that removing him out of country was the lesser of two evils because, under someone in the government's opinion, his followers would probably mob the prison in which he would've been held.

What I do appreciate about other countries is that virtually unanimous condemnation of taking the government by force. If there weren't other countries to regulate that or even watch over that then Honduras' law would be as simple as natural selection: survival of the fittest. Is that true justice?

I believe that a democracy should be enforced and protected through MORE democracy. NEVER through a coup. There should be no exceptions for this.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

No citizen that 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.

I'm not aware of anything in the Honduran Constitution that provides for an impeachment trial.

 

[yolland]

Nope, there isn't; that's a bewildering oversight in their Constitution that's been much-discussed on account of this. However, all that means is that the Supreme Court would thus have the power--and the duty--to hold a trial to determine whether the President has committed crimes for which they may remove him from office. (Or alternatively, since their Constitution doesn't explicitly assign authority to remove a President from office to any one branch, I suppose in principle they could permit the legislature to hold impeachment proceedings; it's just that they'd kind of have to make the process up as they go along.) But, again, the Court never did that; instead they ordered the military to summarily boot him out of the country, something they DON'T have the constitutional authority to do. It's questionable whether they could convict Zelaya under Article 239, since that would require hard evidence of his plans to change the term-limit provisions specifically. However, he did inarguably defy the earlier Court order forbidding him from carrying out his 'non-binding public opinion poll' on whether to have citizens vote (during next November's elections) to convene a constitutional convention. So they probably could have found cause to remove him from office (not from the country) simply by trying him for defying that order. It's pretty damning that they didn't try.

ARTICLE 102.- No Honduran can be expatriated nor handed over to the authorities of a foreign country.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Isn't Article 102 for crimes committed against a foreign government?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)

Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:

5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;

Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)

Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:

3) Be in possesion of a citizen's legal rights;

Article 239: A citizen who has previously held executive power can not be President or designated to the Presidency. Those that break this provision or propose reform of this provision, as well as those that help directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold and exercise the power of his/her post, and will be banned from holding any future public office for a period of ten years.

Article 244: If need be, the lawful duty of the President of the Republic, or of its substitute, will be presented to the President of the National Congress if in session, and if not to the President of the Supreme Court.

Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic.

Article 278: The orders that tie the powers of the President of the Republic to the Armed Forces, through its Chief, shall be followed and exercised.

Article 373: Constitutional reform can only be declared by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with a 2/3s vote of its members. The decree to be voted on will specify the article or articles to be reformed, and it must be concurred by the subsequent session of Congress by a 2/3s vote before it takes effect.

Article 374: It can not be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirements and prohibitions on who can and can not be President.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

It's questionable whether they could convict Zelaya under Article 239, since that would require hard evidence of his plans to change the term-limit provisions specifically.

^

 

[yolland]

And again, Mac, none of those justify throwing him out of the country without a trial. As for Article 102, it's not qualified by offense type in the document.

 

[jvferrandiz]

He's back now.


Ousted president Zelaya returns to Honduras | International | Reuters

TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Ousted President Manuel Zelaya sneaked back into Honduras on Monday almost three months after he was toppled in a coup, and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy to avoid arrest by the de facto government.

Zelaya's ouster on June 28 in a dispute over presidential term limits plunged Honduras into its worst political conflict in decades, and was condemned by U.S. President Barack Obama, the European Union and Latin American governments.

Zelaya had been in exile mostly in Nicaragua while a de facto government that backed the coup against him became more entrenched in office, defying international calls to allow the leftist president to return.

But his sudden appearance in Honduras on Monday increased pressure on the country's ruler Roberto Micheletti to cede power and increased the chance of violent protests or a standoff at the embassy.

"I am the legitimate president chosen by the people and that is why I came here," Zelaya told Reuters by telephone from inside the Brazilian embassy.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

The government has installed a curfew a little less than 50 hours. It's crazy. They've painted themselves into a corner and now they don't know what to do.