All wrong in Honduras

Submitted by Bird Dog on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 9:00am

The president of Honduras blatantly violated the law when he tried to push forward an illegal referendum. Basically, he was trying to pull a Chavez by gaming the system to amass more power unto himself, but Chavez is smarter or Zelaya is dumber.

But the courts and the congress were also wrong by engineering Zelaya's swift removal. However, from a commenter at the ObWinger site:

"Article 239.- The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
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."

Zelaya was immediately removed as ordered by the supreme court. Larisa Alexandrovna has a good argument as to why it is a coup. Basically, bypassing due process, passing off a fraudulent resignation letter and dumping the guy in another country is bad form.

Barack Obama called the act of removing Zelaya "illegal". He also called it a "coup". However, by law, if you call something a coup, you cut off aid to that nation, which is perhaps why SecState Clinton wouldn't go that far:

Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.

Under U.S. law, no aid -- other than for the promotion of democracy -- may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup.

"We do think that this has evolved into a coup," Clinton told reporters, adding the administration was withholding that determination for now.

Asked if the United States was currently considering cutting off aid, Clinton shook her head no.

I think Barack and Hillary need to have a meeting and get on the same page. The Honduran government, such as it, should at least retroactively impeach the guy. But if they want to do it right, he should be returned and then impeached.

[Update:] Hmmm. According to Steven Taylor, the language of the referendum has nothing to do with changing the presidential term. The translation:

Do you agree with the installation of a fourth ballot box during the 2009 general elections so that the people can decide on the calling of a national constituent assembly? Yes or no.

I take this to mean that the president was calling for a generalized constitutional convention, because there is no language whatsoever about changing the rules for elective office. However, what Zelaya did was still illegal because this kind of referendum is supposed to be initiated by the legislature, not the president. If anything, Zelaya's acts look even less coup-worthy.
--

"I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say."

--Robert Gibbs

Thoughts on this?

(#172300)

Submitted by brendanm98 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 7:31am.

LINK. I'm just linking, not judging because I feel I lack information, so it's a sincere question.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

same el pais article

(#172306)

Submitted by nilsey on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:05am.

describes military enforced curfew in the capital, unexplained explosions, etc.

Member of the Forvm Five

well, i clicked through to the El Pais article

(#172305)

Submitted by nilsey on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:03am.

and in fact it does say the following rights have been suspended in honduras by the congress at the request of the new president: freedom of assembly, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of association, rights of due process on arrest, and right of free travel within the country.

has BD updated with this info?

Member of the Forvm Five

Thanks (nt)

(#172307)

Submitted by brendanm98 on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:10am.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Honduras? Where's that?

(#172249)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:02pm.

One of the oddest things about the U.S.A. today is that our politicians, our press & our people are a about a hundred times more interested in what's going on in Iran, Iraq & Israel than they are in what's going on in Honduras, Mexico, and other points to our immediate South.

Go figure.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

is anything mysterious

(#172278)

Submitted by Micky Love on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:13pm.

The US is quite capable of managing the affairs of Honduras according to its wishes. This is not true of Iran.

Honduras is a small economic backwater, while Iran plays an important role in a region the US is determined to dominate.

I wouldn't have thought there is anything mysterious in how attention has been focussed.

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

It's certainly curious.

(#172252)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:12pm.

Any theories as to why?

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Possibly.

(#172262)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:45pm.

But you go first.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

No, I insist.

(#172270)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:21pm.

(Seriously, I got nothing.)

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Oil v bananas?

(#172341)

Submitted by mmghosh on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 12:54pm.

Wasn't Honduras the original banana republic?

Alternative (if fluid) view here....

(#171983)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 10:30am.

http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

I think they are on the same page

(#171977)

Submitted by Gabriel on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 10:29am.

I think they are trying to tell Latin America the US has changed its bad old ways while making sure they don't support a new Chavez

This place is my vacation.

Now if only our own country had done the same

(#171968)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 9:39am.

with the Bush Administration. With remarkably few exceptions, every last one of them acted beyond any legal mandate. Larisa Alexandrovna is far too kind: the only Screaming of Bloody Murder I heard was the fearmongering about WMDs and the lies about torture.

Zelaya had to go, and he was frogmarched out. That's called justice.

So extrajudicial removal by the military is OK?

(#171988)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 10:37am.

I can't go with that, Blaise.

We agree that Zelaya had to go, but I'm a big fan of the rule of law. With the apparent unanimity in the courts and congress, it shouldn't have been that hard to impeach him and remove him by law.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Who authorized the removal?

(#172008)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 12:00pm.

That's the question here. Zelaya was manifestly operating far beyond his legitimate powers. He had to go: he was a dictator. The courts had already ruled his referendum illegal. He fired all those who opposed this referendum.

We don't know for sure, but it seems Zelaya was arrested on the authority of Honduras' Supreme Court. At least that's the current story.

The Saturday Night Massacre

(#172012)

Submitted by stillnotking on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 12:28pm.

was illegal too, but that doesn't mean I would have wanted Nixon frogmarched out of the Lincoln Bedroom by the Marines and whisked off to Mexico.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Nixon didn't try to rewrite the Constitution

(#172019)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 1:15pm.

by some idiotic referendum. Had he tried, SCOTUS and Congress would have had a few things to say about /that/. They would certainly have had him arrested, at some point.