Honduras: Photos of Coup

Anonymous

This isn’t a coup. This is the military enforcing the rule of law on behalf of the entire government which supports it.

patii93

that is just so upsetting how bad it is out there.. i lived in Guatemala for most of my life.. and it’s not any better.. the cops out there are generally pigs. not all of them, but most.

Happy Morlock

“why didn’t he finish his term and let someone else amend the law?”

Takuan, as the US State Department official said, it was a nonbinding survey. Which means ZELAYA COULD NOT RUN NEXT YEAR, EVEN IF THE NONBINDING SURVEY GOT 100% SUPPORT.

Why?

Because the survey asked if the question of amending the constitution should be part of the next general election. If the rest of the government had agreed to putting the question on the ballot for the general election, it would’ve been voted on WHILE THE HONDURANS WERE ELECTING THEIR NEXT PRESIDENT, WHEN THE CURRENT RULES ABOUT RUNNING AGAIN WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE.

Nonbinding survey vs. exiling an elected president. Which is worse? This should be easy to answer for anyone who supports protesters for freedom and democracy, whether they’re Iranian, Chinese, Tibetan, or Honduran.

Anonymous

Repeat: There was no coup. The military was acting on the orders of the judiciary to remove the president who was subverting the legal system to . The Congress President was announced president until the end of the term and the planned elections in November will chose the next president.

The “coup” spin is PR from the ousted Zelaya and other chavista-style Presidents.

Here’s some articles my Honduran friends have linked to explaining the situation (my newsfeed is exploding with their comments in pride and support for their democracy and calls for peace):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

http://lahondurasposible.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-rompe-paradigma-en-america.html (in spanish)

Moriarty

I’m seeing clear, straightforward legal arguments vs. emotional, superficial arguments. Conclusion? Not a coup. The president was legally removed from power. The military never took control, never overthrew the government. They enforced the rule of law and supported the legal government, as per the constitution. A straightforward reading supports this, but what really matters is that the supreme court supports it. I’m actually kind of shocked by the amount of support I’m seeing for an executive forcefully defying the constitution, the courts, and the legislature.

Just to be clear, things that are irrelevant:

Whether a majority of the population support the former president.

Whether the relevant constitutional provisions are unreasonably harsh.

Whether the president was removed by force, even at gunpoint, even if they fly him out of the country.

Whether or not the former president was a good president.

Whether or not the new president (NOT the “new government” – it’s the same government) cracks down on free speech.

Where the guns the military uses came from.

The plight of the Honduran poor.

BillCunningham

From what I’ve been reading about this, I do not think characterizing this as a Military Coup is quite accurate.

Apparently, the President was attempting to push through a referendum that would allow him to defy the constitutional term limit on his office, so he could remain President for more terms. The legislature and judiciary both disallowed the referendum, per their legal and constitutional roles. Defying these constitutional checks, the president was pushing forward with the referendum anyway. he attempted to have the military conduct the polls, as none of the branches of government would, but even elements of the military refused – and so he dismissed several top ranking officers.

So, the judiciary, using constitutionally granted powers and in defense of the constitution, ordered the military to remove the sitting President. The head of the legislature was placed in power to finish out the President’s term, again per constitutional provision, until the next election.

It sounds more to me like it was the President that attempted a soft coup, and the legislature, judiciary and military that defended the constitution.

Yet this is being characterized as a military coup. I find that to be highly oversimplified and potentially dangerously misleading.

Anonymous

why do people keep calling this a coup? the president was deposed in a 100% LEGAL constitutional move. Article 239 spells it out clearly.

“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.”

He PROPOSED the reform, so he was kicked out of power by congress AND the supreme court.

100% rule of law.

-gk

jeaguilar

My good friend who lives in Honduras wrote the following:

“Hey guys. By now, I think you know what`s going on in Honduras, but just in case I`ll fill you in. The President was overthrown on Sunday at the crack of dawn and flown to Costa Rica.

Basically, he was pressing for a new Constitution, which would presumably enable him to perpetuate himself in office indefinitely, like Chavez. For that, he wanted to run a survey asking people if they wanted a fourth ballot in the November elections, calling for a fourth ballot calling for a Constitutional Assembly, which was deemed illegal by the Attorney General, Government Procurement Office, Supreme Court, etc, and they ordered him to stop his survey activities, which he did not. When he ordered the Armed Forces to look over the survey material, they refused on the gorunds that it was an illegal order, so he relieved the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The next morning, the Supreme Court deemed his removal unconstitutional and ordered the General back to his post. The President then gathered a mob and went to the Air Force Base, where the material for the survey was sitting and took all the material. The Air Force Commander told him to go ahead and take it away.

By this point, there was calm, everyone was thinking, he knows he has no support from the Armed Forces so he won`t carry on with anything even if the survey takes place. But on Saturday night, he printed a decree calling for the National Constitutional Assembly, regardless of the survey results. Basically, by Sunday morning, he was gonna disolve Congress and the Supreme Court, so the military went to his house on Sunday at 4 am, arrested him, took him to the Air Force Base, put him on a plane and flew his ass to Costa Rica.

2 things worry me, the International Community sees this as a Coup and will not recognize the new Government, our new President is a crook like all other politicians, but most Hondurans prefer him to that shithead we had. The other is that the whole Cabinet was sacked so my boss is history, I might actually be unemployed by Friday.

So I`ll stay in touch and keep yopu guys updated.”

Bevatron Repairman

So the military refused to obey an unlawful order of the President? Works for me.

Moriarty

(Just to be clear, I’m just basing this on the arguments I’ve seen here and elsewhere. I don’t know firsthand how it’s supposed to work.)

Antinous / Moderator

I live in the US. The idea of a Supreme Court and military that support the Constitution seems like a dream. Ours just caved in when our President violated it.

yesno

What’s most frustrating is that the (correct) argument that this is not a coup is just being ignored, presumably by people who support the politics of the former President.

There may be political reasons for opposing what the Supreme Court, Legislature, Attorney General, and Military did to protect democracy in Honduras. But there are no colorable legal arguments against it.

Anonymous

Another fascist “president for life” dictator ousted. That’s a good thing, and goes against thbe unfortinate tide of the rise of Stalinist fascism in Latin America.

Antinous: Our President violated the Constitution It would not surprise me. He has done so many wrong things in the past few months.

yesno

“The Honduran Congress late Sunday officially voted Mr. Zelaya out of office, replacing him with the president of Congress…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

So he wasn’t even President at the time of the supposed coup. Utter intellectual dishonesty in the coverage of this. A President who defies the legislature is a threat to democracy, not the other way around.

Takuan

why didn’t he finish his term and let someone else amend the law?

Anonymous

This whole idea that Zelaya violated Article 239 (dealing with proposing to change term limits or allow re-election) is irrelevant because the Honduran Supreme Court never made a ruling on Article 239. Their decision does not even mention this article. This is likely because there was no proof whatsoever of Zelaya’s intention to modify term limits. Certainly the proposed non-binding poll did not mention such a thing, so it would be speculative to assume that any future referendum would go down this path.

Anonymous

So he wasn’t even President at the time of the supposed coup. Utter intellectual dishonesty in the coverage of this. A President who defies the legislature is a threat to democracy, not the other way around.

rbvcallahan

What seems very incriminating, whether or not it’s legally actionable in itself, is that Venezuela was the origin of the ballots which Zelaya contrived to smuggle in for his term extension vote (i.e., to create authoritarian rule). Zelaya looks as much a puppet of Hugo Chavez as Hafez Al-Assad was a Soviet puppet when he and other Soviet Air Academy graduates seized power in Syria decades ago. Official Caracas’ angry saber-rattling over Zelaya’s exile seem to belie Chavez’s role in the plot to undermine the Honduran constitution. Zelaya clearly seems guilty of sedition, and the Venezuelan connection makes Zelaya’s actions all the more treacherous, if not outright treason.

Sef

When the military take control of the executive – that’s a coup.

…though I can see how North Americans might mistake it for “bringing democracy to Honduras.”

Read some Chomsky and learn to cope.

Bevatron Repairman

Also, simply because the military was the instrument by which the Supreme Court order was carried out doesn’t make it a coup, any more than the use of the 101st Airborne to desegregate Little Rock Central High School was a coup. The local law enforcement could not be relied upon, nor the Arkansas National Guard, so Eisenhower used the Army.

My understanding is that Central American armies are much more integral to the routine operation of the state than here or in Europe, (see, e.g., the fact that the Honduran Army is in charge of election logistics), so I don’t know that the Army arresting the President is much different than the Honduran local police or any sort of federal policing agency (if it exists at all).a

Anonymous

#20: Obama says it’s a coup:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE55S5J220090629?sp=true

Well, then it must be true.

Laberinto

Obviously, this history professor doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/01/EDGV18GCQ4.DTL

Rounding up labor leaders and dissidents? Way to go, Rule of Law!

mdh

Why didn’t he finish his term and let someone else amend the law??

Why did they fake his signature and abduct him?

Is there no OTHER impeachment procedure there?

Happy Morlock

The coup leaders exiled the duly elected president and have banned outside media, including CNN. That’s about as coup-like as coup-like could be.

Happy Morlock

Antinous, repeat after me:

Protesting for freedom and democracy is good.

Exiling democratically elected leaders is bad.

Possibly of interest: Alberto Vallente Thorensen: Why Zelaya’s Actions Were Legal

Takuan

if it any consolation, I believe history will reveal the military in America declined to follow orders when six thermonuclear cruise missiles did not make it to the middle east.

Anonymous

This is what should have happened here in the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court should have ordered the military to enforce an exile to some place like the Bahamas.

Eduardo Padoan

Obviously every president (Obama, Lula, and obviously Chavez) is “concerned” about this supposed coup. They fear their our legislative and judiciary powers get any ideas and start using their powers as they should.
As far as I remember, only one senator prosed that Bush should be impeached. And in Brazil, Lula was highly protected (“we need to protect the executive”) during the investigations of the MensalÃ£o Scandal.
I’m yet forming my opinion about this, but I already agree with you, Antinous: as a Brazilian, it sounds like a dream to me too.

rbvcallahan

I agree with Bevatron Repairman. Coups change the government and/or political system, but the Honduran military has not apparently done either by exiling Zelaya. They actually ensured continuity of government by removing the criminal head of their country’s executive branch. Impeachment or censure would’ve been tantamount to a slap on the wrist, and would’ve bought Zelaya time to build his authoritarian throne. Local law enforcement cannot be relied on for matters of state stature anyway.

Happy Morlock

A good source:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/

See “Two Military Battalions Turn Against Honduras Coup Regime”

Obama said, “We don’t want to go back to a dark past. The United States has not always stood as it should with some of these fledgling democracies. But over the last several years, I think both Republicans and Democrats in the United States have recognized that we always want to stand with democracy, even if the results don’t always mean that the leaders of those countries are favorable toward the United States. And that is a tradition that we want to continue.”

Anonymous

Going to side with the not a coup side, although the ban on not even proposing the reform of the constitution is a little harsh.

Laberinto

Antinous, I’m not sure you know what a “straw man” is. And what the hell could you possibly know about Zelaya’s popular support? Do you even speak Spanish?

You continue to say Zelaya has acted unconstitutionally. I’ve posted a link to the Honduran Constitution. You have yet to cite Chapter and Article that Zelaya violated.

Moreover, we know from the hispanoparlante media that tens of thousands of people are, in fact, protesting the illegal coup and we know that they’re being met with tear gas and rubber bullets. Just because the northamerican media don’t report it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Antinous, dictators don’t “grab power” by taking non-binding opinion surveys. Dictators grab power by sending in troops, shutting down opposition rallies, arresting and shooting opposition leaders, and imposing new blackouts.

In short, dictators act like this:
http://www.rsf.org/News-blackout-after-army-ousts.html

Anonymous

The title of this article is misleading as this was NOT a military coup, but rather the military carrying out a lawful order by congress and the supreme court to oust the president. Why? you ask. Because the president wanted to break the law by conducting a vote that would allow him to remain in power pass his term. This was clearly a violation of the Honduran constitution. Therefore, all the legal entities were forced to ENFORCE the law by removing the president. This was an effort to SAVE democracy, not overthrow it.

Laberinto

Actually, you’re not seeing legal arguments here. Legal arguments, by definition, cite stature, legal scholarship, and precedent. You’re seeing arguments based on vaguely-grasped junior-high civics lectures.

The actual text of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, does not specifically forbid a referendum on a Constitutional Convention. It does specifically forbid an officeholder from advocating the abolition of term limits, but does not criminalize this act (it only stipulates that such an officeholder may be stripped of power). Nobody here has quoted a single speech, essay, memorandum, letter, or communication in which President Zelaya violated this Article of the Constitution. Nor did the Supreme Court, which declared the proposed referendum unconstitutional, ever hand down a judgment that President Zelaya violated this Article.

Nothing in the Honduran Constitution of 1982 gives the Supreme Court authority to command the Armed Forces of Honduras. Nothing gives the military the authority to exile, imprison, or detain an officeholder who advocates extending term limits (unless the officeholder commits an actual criminal offense, of which President Zelaya has not even been accused.)

The Honduran Constitution of 1982 does specifically forbid using exile as a punishment and guarantees due process to all Honduran citizens.

The Honduran Constitution of 1982 specifically and verbatim says that no Honduran citizen is obliged to obey a government installed by military force.

Incidentally, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 also specifically and verbatim calls Honduras a “democracy” in five separate places.

Finally, the literal text of the 1982 Honduran Constitution explicitly and verbatim defines attempts to undermine popular sovereignty–presumably even otherwise lawful attempts–as “treason against the State.”

The Hondran constitution of 1982 is available at http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond82.html

Bobdotcom

Uh, Anonymous @10 — I’m pretty sure Antinous was referring to the previous U.S. president, who, along with his vice president and cabinet, exhibited very little regard for our Constitution and rule of law. While I haven’t agreed with everything Obama has done to date, I have yet to see any evidence that he’s followed suit.

Antinous / Moderator

A lot of multi-comment new users in this thread.

Happy Morlock

Obama says it’s a coup:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE55S5J220090629?sp=true

Argue with him, not Xeni.

KanedaJones

OK so lemme get this straight..

**Article 239 spells it out clearly.

“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.”

He PROPOSED the reform, so he was kicked out of power by congress AND the supreme court.

100% rule of law.**

Well doesn’t anyone have a problem with a law that says anyone with the power to change a law will loose that power if they try to change THIS law????

I’m being told those in government against him are right wing so it makes sense they would be totally for a law that gets a leftest out immediately.

True democracy would have him finish his term.

the seriously left thinking south american (unwisely) supports “dictator for life” for the exact reason that elections of short terms in office play right into the hands of corporate behind the scenes decision makers/puppet masters.

dictator or elections the company wins. until capitalism is overthrown it shall be like that.

Anonymous

Holy shit this is frustrating. All of you saying this isn’t a coup because Zelaya was subverting Honduran democracy, listen up: the referendum in question was non-binding. Meaning it was essentially an opinion poll. The people of Honduras were simply going to be asked, “Should we call a new constitutional convention?”

So, no, this wasn’t a dictatorial conspiracy, just a poll that would have opened the door to the possibility of amending the Honduran constitution, if there was a demonstrated demand for it. Now, what were those in power so afraid of again?

Don’t take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_constitutional_referendum,_2009#Background

joaquin de trujillo

Commenters here don’t seem to understand the rule of law here as it pertains to democracy. This armed overthrow of a democratically elected president is most definitely an illegal coup detat. President Zelaya must be reinstated immediately or else all USA aid should be cut off, including the funds that paid for the M-16s used to roust him out of his bed and the aircraft used to fly him off to his vacation at the Holiday Inn in San Jose.

I suspect many of those denying reality before all of our eyes here are supporters of the oligarchs responsible for generations of stealing Honduran resources, forcing wage slavery on its people, murder of anyone who steps out of line, and the ruination of the magical jungles and swamps of the Costa Caribe, and the magestic pine forests of the interior.

Regardless of one’s political affinity, putting forth a non-binding plebicite to see whether a president might serve another four years (not indefinite rule, perdon Chavista imaginers) is NOT illegal, and not grounds for becoming a non-president. Zelaya was not perfect, and we question why he did not suggest this change of rules three years ago. Even question why he did not take himself out, but plan for his successor to serve two terms. We also know that changing the constitution is definitely something different than bringing prosperity back to the people of the hillside slums of Tegus, those melon laborers who were punished last year when the US declared their crop was tainted, or the Garifuna who have been cut out of the deal to build massive “ecotourist” resorts on their mangrove swamps.

What I do know is that the ailing constitution as it is allows for non-performing presidents to be impeached. Unfortunately, the General who went against Zelaya is another graduate of the vaunted School of the Americas, that the famous alumni can claim a list of horrible crimes and overthrown democratic leaders who actually thought they could do something with their presidency instead of stealing all the money in the country for four years.

Chavez is a blowhard, and has abused democratic norms in Venezuela, but he does represent a break with the neoliberal past where the corporatocracy and their in-country fourteen families divvy up the spoils and the people can just deal with it.

Zelaya is President of Honduras. If you don’t like him, vote down his plebicite and wait until January when he says goodbye. But the corporatocracy has no need for elections and kicked him out. What they are hoping is to draw Chavez into a larger skirmish. Rest assured, Zelaya is the pretext and Chavez is the target. Obama and Clinton take orders from other powers…we will see in the coming days who rules whom. The rule of law and democracy, or the kleptocracy-business as usual? And all of you can keep telling yourself it’s all just propaganda…

J

Antinous / Moderator

I suspect many of those denying reality before all of our eyes here are supporters of the oligarchs responsible for generations of stealing Honduran resources, forcing wage slavery on its people, murder of anyone who steps out of line, and the ruination of the magical jungles and swamps of the Costa Caribe, and the magestic pine forests of the interior.

Some commenters have actually quoted the Honduran law in regard to this matter. You have suggested that anyone who disagrees with you is a supporter of fascism. Hmm. Which argument holds more weight?

Regardless of one’s political affinity, putting forth a non-binding plebicite to see whether a president might serve another four years (not indefinite rule, perdon Chavista imaginers) is NOT illegal,

Are you suggesting that the commenter who quoted the law is making it up? Or do you have a personal version of the law that we don’t have access to? Would you like to quote some part of the Honduran Constitution to back up your argument?

Anonymous

“U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.”

- yes, how terrible, a military force that follows the rule of law despite the protestations of the executive. its almost delightfully novel.

Zelaya had been elected to a four year term that ended at the end of 2009. The Constitution of Honduras makes it very clear you can not stand for a second term – ever. Article 239 says once you have been President you can never be President (or VP) again.

The constitution is so adamant about the one term limit, it says that if you promote a change to that clause, you lose your public office immediately and can not hold office again for ten years.

And Article 42 goes further and says anyone promoting the President staying in office beyond on term loses their Honduras citizenship. So I think we can conclude they donâ€™t want their politicians to do what Chavez did in Venezuela and use his thugs to initimidate the population into changing the law to allow him to become President forever.

~ c

joaquin de trujillo

It should be noted that Article 2 of the Honduran Constitution allows citizens of Honduras to engage in referendums and surveys. It was clearly constitutional and legal for President Zelaya to put forward this survey.

International media have misconstrued the reason behind Sunday’s coup as an alleged “reelection” attempt by President Zelaya. It actually was a non-binding survey the people of Honduras, backed by more than 800,000 signatures from citizens that would merely consider the possibility of adding a 4th issue to the election ballot this coming November, when presidential elections are to be held. The question posed for Sunday’s poll was:

“Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constitutional Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?”

Doesn’t sound like a reelection bid and doesn’t even assure that a constitutional assembly would be held. It puts that issue to be decided during the next elections to be held during 2010. Truth is, Zelaya would be out of office by 2010, so reelection would be impossible. Not about Zelaya — sorry. Not true. Not guilty.

What happened Sunday is that the military backed by one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America, the Honduran Supreme Court, acted to stop the citizens of Honduras from speaking out against their lacking constitution. Not only term limits would be considered, but a whole host of issues including indigenous rights, even the rights of women, curiously left out.

Real change the people could believe in. Not about Zelaya but the betterment of Honduras. The ruling elite of Honduras does not want change.

It should be noted that the constitution mentions nowhere the use of the military to oust a sitting president when his policies are not appreciated by other powerful factions…interesting…

Griffin

I don’t know the details, but nothing I’ve heard of this so far sounds like a military coup.

That doesn’t make it right – the laws do seem a tad strict with the immediate removal for proposing such things, but you know, the problem its trying to address is a real one. Look at Chavez… look at Mugabe. The US limits term limits, and it does if for a damn good reason.

Of course the country is still messed up, but it seems like this was done in accordance with the law. What exactly is it that makes a military coup? I thought it required actually overthrowing the current government, not doing as the law and government says. (The president is not the government.)

Happy Morlock

Kristin Bricker wrote the day before the coup: “the ballot for tomorrow’s poll only asks one question, “Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constitutional Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?”

Even if people had voted “yes” on the ballot that was scheduled on the day of the coup, Zelaya would not have been able to run in the general elections.

Takuan

if the ordinary people of Honduras want change, why don’t they kill the ruling elite?

Happy Morlock

Best argument that it’s a coup: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-coup-obvious-missing-from.html

Here’s part of it:

* When a country’s president is woken up at 1am by soldiers firing shots into his house, it’s a coup.

* When that president is bundled into a waiting aircraft and flown out of the country against his will, it’s a coup.

* When the army closes down TV and radio stations, shuts off power supply and orders an immediate 48 hour curfew across the nation, it’s a coup.

* When a fake letter of resignation is used in parliament to justify the transfer of power, it’s a coup.

* When the first thing said by the abused president to the press is “I’ve have not resigned and this is a coup”, it’s a coup.

There’s more. Follow the link.

Anonymous

“Even if people had voted “yes” on the ballot that was scheduled on the day of the coup, Zelaya would not have been able to run in the general elections.”

Correct – But he had already demonstrated he was willing to disregard the law, what makes you think he wouldn’t do it not again?

I’m not privy to his motivations, but his VP quit so he could run for President. Possibly illegal and certainly implied illegal conduct under article 239, as I quoted above.

~ c

Happy Morlock

Let me make this as clear as it can possibly be:

On the one side, an attempt to have a non-binding survey. On the other, an elected president kidnapped and dumped in another country. Maybe the attempt to have a non-binding survey was wrong. Then the rest of the government could have ruled that it was what it said it was, non-binding. Kidnapping the president and shutting down international news? A coup.

Antinous / Moderator

Let me make this as clear as it can possibly be: On the one side, an attempt to have a non-binding survey. On the other, an elected president kidnapped and dumped in another country.

One the one side, a president making a power grab violates the constitution, ignores the Supreme Court and uses the resources of the state. A coup. On the other hand, Congress impeaches him, the Supreme Court orders his arrest and he is removed from office without harm. Democracy.

Anonymous

*sigh* @ Happy Morlock. I don’t normally get into this, so forgive me – its nothing personal:

Are you even going to address the points I made regarding the illegal behaviour of the former President? I even backed up my statements with direct references from the Honduran constitution.

Are you going to acknowledge that the behavior of the military was sanctioned by the courts and the congress? Or that the military has relinquished control to the Speaker, who has now been sworn in as President per the law?

Pro-tip:

* When a country’s president ignores the constitution, and makes a power grab, its a coup.

~ c

They see me trollin, they hatin…

mdh

Therefore, all the legal entities were forced to ENFORCE the law by removing the president. This was an effort to SAVE democracy, not overthrow it.

Nothing says coup like obtuse rationalizations.

kisters

The message is clear.

Democracy will prevail.

DWittSF

Justin Raimondo says coup.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/30/history-haunts-honduras/

Here’s what he says about the Honduran Constitution:

The dishonesty of the latter is particularly brazen in this instance, because the Honduran constitution is hardly a sacrosanct document devoted to individual liberty, and it can hardly be considered on the same level as our own. Certain key articles are â€“ “legally” â€“ permanent and cannot be amended, not even by a unanimous vote of the Congress, let alone the people. No document created by humans is perfect, least of all the Honduran constitution, and the idea that holding a popular referendum on the question of changing it is a “violation” of democracy is an idea that could only gain currency in Bizarro World â€“ or on the editorial page of the War Street Journal.

Happy Morlock

Check out the photos in the two most recent posts here: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/

The Hondurans are fighting for freedom, and every government that has taken a side, from the US to China, is with the Honduran people.

joaquin de trujillo

Never used the word “fascism” to describe supporters of a golpe de estado of a democratically elected president.

I used the word “corporatocracy” or supporters of the “oligarchs.” From Wikipedia: Corporatocracy or Corpocracy is a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country.

And: An oligarchy (Greek á½ˆÎ»Î¹Î³Î±ÏÏ‡Î¯Î±, OligarkhÃa) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military or religious hegemony.

“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.”

Now, those who are accused of a crime must be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the Supreme Court through honest deliberations decides this move of a non-binding plebicite, a “what if?” that would not change the constitution nor make Zelaya electable as has been noted, is illegal, they must insititute proceedings to impeach their sitting president.

Removing him while in pajamas, no kissing the wife, no petting the dog. Seems kinda, you know, fascist…

There, I quoted the “constitution” or whatever these words are…

Antinous / Moderator

joaquin,

The thing is, when someone is in control of the mechanism of the State, innocent until proven guilty is fine, but remaining in control of the State until proven guilty is a fairly huge problem.

danrapson

Seems like the military is armed with All-American gizmos. Wonder what side we were on in establishing this ‘President’?

Antinous / Moderator

the Honduran constitution is hardly a sacrosanct document devoted to individual liberty, and it can hardly be considered on the same level as our own.

And yet, it’s theirs. Ours was written by a bunch of rich white men in response to British taxation. Theirs was written with an eye to the long history of Latin American dictatorships. It’s hard to argue with a provision to prevent anyone from ever becoming President for Life. The analysis at the link essentially equates dictatorship with military. In the modern world, that’s either naive or disingenuous. A civilian dictatorship will play much better in the era of instant worldwide information. In the long run, having a Bush grandson in the White House, another Gandhi ruling India, another Bhutto leading Pakistan is a greater menace to freedom. It is stealth dictatorship. Zelaya’s power grab, coming on the heels of military, coup-leading Hugo Chavez’s power grab seems to me to be a bigger threat than removing a President who violates his own constitution.

not even by a unanimous vote of the Congress

The intended referendum was rejected by Congress, the attorney general, and the top electoral body, and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a unanimous, or even majority vote in favor of his illegal referendum would have had a different outcome. Under the actual circumstances of the event, it’s a straw man argument.

Takuan

who?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8135358.stm

Bevatron Repairman

If not the Supreme Court of Honduras, who gets to decide what is ultimately constitutional or not under Honduran law?

Laberinto

You can tell the military is trying to “restore democracy” in Honduras from the way it’s rounding up and beating foreign journalists and shutting down power to opposition media outlets. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Rindan

It is really simple. The Honduras constitution doesn’t allow you to even propose having another term limit. This is a nation scared by “presidents” for life. This is akin to the Japanese constitution forbidding an offensive military. The president violated this piece of the constitution. If he had just violated it and the Supreme Court and told him to knock that shit off and he stopped, you might be able to cry coup. That didn’t happen.

The president violated the constitution. The Supreme Court and the legislature BOTH ordered him to stop. He violated those orders. On the orders of the Supreme Court, he got a lesson on checks and balances by having his ass kicked out of the country. In this case, he learned that the executive branch actually has to follow the law. When the Supreme Court tells you to stop, you stop. Fail to stop, and you get the boot.

The military didn’t take over. The president violated the law. The judiciary declared that he was in violation of the law. The president refused to stop violating the law. The judiciary ordered the army to kick his ass out of the country. They army complied and with absolutely no delay handed the government back over the civilian rule.

Coup my ass.

The executive branch is not the magical branch that gets to ignore the law and pretend like judiciary orders don’t need to be followed.

Anonymous

The executive branch is not the magical branch that gets to ignore the law and pretend like judiciary orders don’t need to be followed.

This provision obsolete in the United States of America. Magic Executives since Reagan!

The ancient greeks predicted this cycle, you know. American revolution -> American republic -> steadily increasing enfranchisment -> democracy -> economic instability -> American dictatorship.

“He who controls history commands the present day”, ol’ chick-pea said. Or something like that.

It’s unfortunate that the Honduran military is acting like, well, a military force, brutally crushing dissent and suppressing communications in a highly effective military fashion. But perhaps it’s better than having another “el presidente for life”.

Laberinto

If I understand correctly, it’s democracy when a democratically-elected leader is ousted for proposing a democratic referendum over a convention to democratically amend a constitution. Is that about it?

Seriously, some of you people need to look up the etymology of the word “democracy.” The dictionary, incidentally, is that book in your house that’s not pornography or a D&D manual.

Rindan

I should point out that while the while el presidante got what he lawfully had coming, that doesn’t magically justify every post removal action that the government has taken. You can rightfully and legally shut down a president who is merrily violating the law and still act like an ass enforcing a media blackout.

One crime doesn’t justify the other, or vice versa.

The president can fully deserve to be booted for deciding that listening to the judiciary and legislative branch is optional, AND the new government can be handling the situation poorly with a lock down.

Happy Morlock

Antinous, I thought you were on the side of protesters for freedom. Obama is. The US State Department is. The transcript is at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/06a/125453.htm

QUESTION: Yeah, but now youâ€™re invoking the â€“ Iâ€™m sorry, but now youâ€™re invoking the constitution to return him. So did you think that what he was doing was in line with the constitution?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, but thereâ€™s a big distinction here because, on the one instance, weâ€™re conducting about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, weâ€™re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country. So I think we can distinguish between those terms â€“ those two in terms of whatâ€™s constitutional and what might be left to institutions.

But I think whatâ€™s important to remember about the survey is that it was just that. It wasnâ€™t even a formal vote. It was a nonbinding survey. And the issue of whether it was legitimate or illegal did not revolve around the survey itself. It revolved around who conducted it and whether or not this could be conducted by the government and which institution in the government could conduct it, and whether or not as itâ€™s being conducted state security forces could be used to both manage and secure the equipment that was being used for the survey and provide security. And thatâ€™s where the divide occurred within Honduras. It was about who conducted this survey, with several institutions in Honduras insisting that the Honduran Government could not conduct it, at least not in the way that President Zelaya had suggested.

And from our point of view, what was important was not inserting ourselves and trying to make a determination of what was legal or illegal, but trying to insist that the Hondurans find a way to resolve this in a way that was in accord with their constitution.

Rindan

If I understand correctly, it’s democracy when a democratically-elected leader is ousted for proposing a democratic referendum over a convention to democratically amend a constitution. Is that about it?

You are right that what happened was not “democratic”. Thankfully, the people of Honduras do not live in a democracy. They live in a Republic. A Republic is kind of like a democracy, except that it nixes 51% = law. So, in a Democracy, you could lawfully and democratically have 51% of the population vote to have the other 49% be enslaved. In a Republic, there is probably a constitution preventing that sort of thing.

In this case, Honduras has a constitution that prevents presidents from proposing the extension of their term limits. Honduras also has an independent Supreme Court that interprets the law. In this case, the president violated the constitution. The Supreme Court declared him in violation and demanded that he stopped. The president then decided that obeying the Supreme Court is optional for the executive branch. At this point the Supreme Court proved that it was in fact NOT optional by ordering the military to kick him out of the country.

So yes, Honduras is not a “democracy”. It is a constitutional Republic where everyone, even the president, has to obey the law, the constitution, and the judiciary.

As a side note, I would never want to live in a “real” democracy. I personally really LIKE the non-democratic things in my government. A bill of rights that can’t be voided by a simple majority, an independent judiciary that forces the president to follow the law, and all the other wonderful non-democratic institutions in my government are the things that I like best about it.

mdh

So the constitution says that when a President proposes doing something unconstitutional that he be run out of town on a rail under false pretense?

Sounds like a little slice of heaven right there.

Anonymous

If this is a coup, it’s a coup by the supreme court and legislature, with support of more than a small part of the military, against a man who had 25 – 30% popular support.

So, regardless of how bad the current situation is, having outside governments demand the restoring of Zelaya in the name of democracy might be problematic for the majority of Hondurans.

“Democracy” increasingly means an imposed condition. A government is democratic when outsiders say it is.

joaquin de trujillo: “…one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America, the Honduran Supreme Court.” Were you saying this before this week?

Happy Morlock

Antinous, are you playing devil’s advocate? By your logic, Tibet’s protesters should accept China’s authority, and Iran’s protesters should accept the mullahs.

Explain to me how beating up reporters and shutting down CNN is part of preserving democracy.

Also, here’s part of Al Giordano’s letter to Andrew Sullivan:

“President Zelaya did not “go forward with his plans nonetheless.” He respected the Supreme Court ruling against a *binding* referendum, and then changed it to a *nonbinding* referendum, on which the courts never made any ruling at all.

“It was that *nonbinding* referendum that the coup plotters sought to preempt, timing the coup on the day of the election. The entire text of that nonbinding question was:

“”Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constitutional Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?”

“And if they’re so convinced that the Honduran people don’t support the idea of reforming the constitution – as all true democracies allow – why then did they choose election day for the coup?

Your reader is suggesting that a people democratically choosing to reform their country’s constitution is somehow undemocratic. That fails every reasonable test of what is democracy and what is not.”

Antinous / Moderator

By your logic, Tibet’s protesters should accept China’s authority, and Iran’s protesters should accept the mullahs.

Repeat after me:
- Manuel Zelaya is not an entire nation like Tibet.
- Manuel Zelaya is not tens of thousands of people like the protesters in Iran.
- Manuel Zelaya is one person.
- Manuel Zelaya does not have the support of any branch of the government or widespread popular support for this unconstitutional move.

Your argument is entirely composed of straw men.

Happy Morlock

Rindan, I understand Honduras is a great place for rich people. It’s just not so good for poor one.

As for your claim that Zelaya was proposing the extension of term limits, see comment 25. If that’s wrong, link to the text of the survey that supports you.

rbvcallahan

The difference between “rule of law” and “rule by law” is exactly this sort of situation: is a country’s constitution so toothless that the el supremo can suspend it at will? It’s funny how people are using the same doctrinaire name-calling to denounce the Honduran military as “People’s Daily” propagandists uttered in disgust when the Chinese army cleared out Red Guards from Wuhan during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. It is incredibly important that the military in any country remains non-politicized and guards the legal foundation of the state from the prevailing winds of ideology.

Anonymous

I’m siding with the “not a coup” view as well, but the real test will be in November. If a real free election takes place, it was not a coup. Right now, it seems that Honduras has things way more together politically than the U.S. Obama has not shown any more real regard for the Constitution than Bush, and our legislative and judicial branches of government have just rolled over and played dead, along with most of the citizenry.

Rindan

So the constitution says that when a President proposes doing something unconstitutional that he be run out of town on a rail under false pretense?

And..

As for your claim that Zelaya was proposing the extension of term limits, see comment 25. If that’s wrong, link to the text of the survey that supports you.

No. The constitution says that if the Supreme Court says that you are in violation of the law, no matter how unfair you think it is, you actually need to obey the judiciary and stop. What got him booted wasn’t making the attempt. He made the attempt, it went to court, and they fought it out. What got him booted was ignoring the independent judiciary AND the legislative branch when they told him to stop. If he had followed the orders of the Supreme Court, he would still be kicking it in his presidential palace right now.

Laberinto

The argument about democracies versus republics is semiliterate bullshit. A “republic” is simply a “public thing,” that is, not a monarchy or aristocracy. Most states that call themselves “republics” are “democratic” republics, including Honduras. The 1982 Honduran Constitution specifically says–in its Preamble–that the law derives legitimate power from “[la] soberana del pueblo hondureÃ±o.” Article Two reads, in part, “La suplantaciÃ³n de la soberanÃa popular y la usurpaciÃ³n de los poderes constituidos se tipifican como delitos de traiciÃ³n a la Patria.” Now, I know some people here are not so good with the languages and such, but “la soberanÃa popular” means, roughly, “democracy,” and the Constitution says trying to subvert it is “treason.”

Rindan

The argument about democracies versus republics is semiliterate bullshit. A “republic” is simply a “public thing,” that is, not a monarchy or aristocracy. Most states that call themselves “republics” are “democratic” republics, including Honduras.

The difference isn’t semantics. All modern ‘democracies’ recognize that some times 50% + 1 doesn’t make right. Constitutions, something that most ‘democracies’ have, enshrine the idea that 50% + 1 does not always equal a win. Straight up 50% + 1 doesn’t make your moral or just, it just means that a majority of people agree. It says nothing about the 50% – 1 bastards out there about to be victimized. When a constitution enshrines freedom of speech, term limits, limits on the power of the executive branch, and all of those other fun things you find in a constitution, it isn’t for protection of the majority. It is to ensure that even if 50%+1 of the population decides that they want to discard the rules, they can’t. They need to go through some laborious constitutional amendment process that hopefully ensures that the people REALLY want to make the change, and generally requires a super majority so that a simple majority doesn’t victimize a minority.

In this case, we had a president violate the law. That in it of itself isn’t big news. The president went to court and was, as enshrined in the constitution, judged by an independent judiciary. The judiciary declared him in violation of the law and ordered him to stop. The reason why he is in Costa Rica is because he decided that the executive branch was special and didn’t need to follow the orders of the judiciary as stated in the constitution.

The big crime here isn’t trying to push for a ballot measure. The crime is deciding that he is above the law and can merrily ignore the judiciary. It doesn’t matter if the president has 99% approval, 50%+1 approval, or 1% approval, he MUST follow the constitution, and he MUST bend to its will. If he doesn’t like how the judiciary is set up, he can change the constitution in a lawful manner. Crying ‘OMG but democracy!’ doesn’t give you the magical right to void a constitution and defy the judiciary.

The power in a modern democracy certainly comes through democratic means, but it isn’t unlimited democratic means. There is a limit, and in this case the limit was that the president needs to obey the law and can’t decided that he is special and gets to ignore the judiciary.