"Coup d'etat" in Honduras

[Genx87]

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

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

And imo exposes the Obama administration for even interjecting itself into this, on the side of a wanna be dictator no less.

 

[Wreckem]

Article 239.- The citizen that has been the head of the Executive 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.

Couple that with 42.5 and several others, no it was NOT A COUP.


Plain and simple. It wasn't a coup it was the rest of the government defending and protecting their constitution.

They are VERY serious about term limits. You have to understand that Honduras went through dictator after dictator. You(Craig) may not agree with their laws, but their laws are their laws and they had every right to do what they did.

The Supreme Court defended the constitution. The military defended the constitution. The Congress defended the constitution. The President tried to violate it, which in and of itself was a violation of it that can bar you from political office and remove your citizenship.

 

[yllus]

Honduras Defends Its Democracy

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

Who's at fault, the person who goes beyond the country's constitutional framework to precipitate the crisis, or the people who do the same to end it? Seems like a fair outcome to me - especially considering how much this stinks of Chavez's meddling.

 

[OCGuy]

After reading more into this, the correct action was taken, and Obama needs to stop looking so ignorant with his public remarks.

 

[lupi]

An interesting development. On the one hand you'd like to push the democracy full speed ahead boat; on the other it seems here we have an elected president abusing the powers of his position to shift towards the great wonders of a socialist system like his personal friends. A move opposed by the legislator and enforced through the countries military.

Should make an interesting case study for those countries whose militaries pledge to the constitution and not office of the executive.

 

[ElFenix]

was this a coup or was this a valid arrest pursuant to a court order from a properly authorized judicial body?

 

[Sacrilege]

Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

I personally find it interesting the administration is saying more about this than Iran. The coincidence of course is they were nearly silent about preserving the totalitarian theocracy in Iran and are vocal about reinstalling a leftist who wants to be the next Chavez. IMO they are picking the wrong sides on these issues for traditional American values(individual freedom ect ect).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Article 239.- The citizen that has been the head of the Executive 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.

Couple that with 42.5 and several others, no it was NOT A COUP.


Plain and simple. It wasn't a coup it was the rest of the government defending and protecting their constitution.

They are VERY serious about term limits. You have to understand that Honduras went through dictator after dictator. You(Craig) may not agree with their laws, but their laws are their laws and they had every right to do what they did.

The Supreme Court defended the constitution. The military defended the constitution. The Congress defended the constitution. The President tried to violate it, which in and of itself was a violation of it that can bar you from political office and remove your citizenship.

That's a reprehensible Law. One can't even suggest the change, wow!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

2+2=4 and Castro/Chavez agrees. Do you?

That said, I'd like to hear more on Obama's position concerning the issue. Legal reasons and whatnot.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

2+2=4 and Castro/Chavez agrees. Do you?

What an utterly irrelevant analogy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

2+2=4 and Castro/Chavez agrees. Do you?

What an utterly irrelevant analogy.

Not at all.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

2+2=4 and Castro/Chavez agrees. Do you?

What an utterly irrelevant analogy.

Not at all.

Yes irrelevant. Obama's position is the former president is still president and Hillary is on the prowl to force him back into power.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Drudge headline sets the record straight:

"OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO"

:Q :roll:

Have you been paying attention to what the administration has been saying? They are siding with Castro and Chavez and want to preserve democracy by forcing the Hondoras govt to take back a wanna be dictator.

2+2=4 and Castro/Chavez agrees. Do you?

What an utterly irrelevant analogy.

Not at all.

Yes irrelevant. Obama's position is the former president is still president and Hillary is on the prowl to force him back into power.

??

It is irrelevant who Agrees. The only thing that is relevant is whether it is the Right or Wrong course of action to take. If Castro and Chavez are Right, then it only makes sense that it is the proper course to take.

I'm not saying they are right, just that your little attempt to smear Obama is way off the mark.

 

[miketheidiot]

obama is in the wrong here if he is suggesting this dude shouldn't have been removed

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
There will be a summit in Nicaragua tomorrow, and Zelaya will attend, with Chavez providing him with transportation.

Expect much huffing and puffing from El Presidente from Venezuela about the Yankee Imperialist CIA coup. What he won't admit is that there are actually people in South America who prefer not to have the same president for life.

That's what Elections are for.

hahaha Are you really that naive? How realistic are elections to remove wanna-be-dictator-for-life types in third world countries? How realistic is it to think the opposition has a chance when opposition leaders end up in jail, under house arrest or "missing"?

The supreme court there, with the help of the military and the congress took the appropriate steps to remove a future tyrant. Assuming they hand power back to the normal democratic process, I'd say it's an excellent job.

Except that there is no evidence of any of those election problems here about Honduras.

If you wait and let things get to that point, it's too late and you end up with a presidente-for-life like Chavez. This guy was clearly heading in that direction, and the appropriate action was taken to make sure he didn't. He was already openly in defiance of the top court's rulings. If the US SCOTUS ruled on an issue and the president just said "who cares what those guys said, I'm gonna decide anyway!", would that be OK as well? In a country like the US, there are viable mechanisms for removing people before things go too far. In third world countries, that mechanism simply is not strong enough, the strongman type leaders are above it.

I'd have a problem with the military installing some generalisimo as the new leader or something like that, but they are simply acting to preserve democracy, they are stepping back and handing the reigns back to congress and the people. It's not much different than the Turkish military ensuring a secular government.

You can't say that it's ustified because of rigged elections, and then respond to it being pointed out there are no rigged elections by saying 'well you can't wait for them'.

And it doesn't take installing a 'general' to make it an unjustified coup. When Chavez was illegally overthrown, it wasn't a general put into power, but a corrupt politician.

The point isn't who replaces him, it's that democracy was violated.

Having said all that, Wreckem found important language from their constitution supporting the claim that the President was right to be stripped of power for his actions.

I still have questions, but that rather boggling language for now suggests there's a case for what they did - and raises questions why the US is challenging it.

On the other hand, the righties who simply saw he's a leftist and supported removal regardless of their being any such legal basis, just over politics. are wrong.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The Honduran Constitution last revised in 2005

The question is whether the Supreme Court acted within the law. If they did, if they have the power to order the president's removal this way I think that's a pretty questionable law to have, but I'm ok with what happened in that case - this president appears to have made some bad choices as well. But if the court acted illegally, it's a coup and not ok.

The SC did follow the law, so to with the Congress. In order to uphold the constitution, the Congress/SC mandated that the military take action. What about this is unconstitutional, undemocratic or wrong? They were proactive instead of reactive.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: OCguy

And here you have it folks. Given a choice between an American (D) president, and Chavez, Craig defends Chavez. :laugh:

Pick better idols.

Some people are so far to the left that they have lost their abilities to reason.

None of these leftists in Latin America has really done anything right to make things better for their people. Yet they are defended because the leftists down there also believe in "spreading the wealth".

And the liberal up here believe in the hype.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
obama is in the wrong here if he is suggesting this dude shouldn't have been removed

I'm not sure, this is a complicated issue, I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The Honduran Constitution last revised in 2005

The question is whether the Supreme Court acted within the law. If they did, if they have the power to order the president's removal this way I think that's a pretty questionable law to have, but I'm ok with what happened in that case - this president appears to have made some bad choices as well. But if the court acted illegally, it's a coup and not ok.

The SC did follow the law, so to with the Congress. In order to uphold the constitution, the Congress/SC mandated that the military take action. What about this is unconstitutional, undemocratic or wrong? They were proactive instead of reactive.

Oh, maybe the same thing that'd be wrong if the Supreme Court had decided on its own that Bill Clinton had broken the law with obstruction of justice, and ordered the military to kidnap him and fly him out of the country to exile, and the then-Republican Congress had immediately voted in its own Speaker of the House as the new President, while displaying a forged 'resignation letter', ignoring the actual process for impeachment?

I haven't seen any details on the process yet, if it was followed. You haven't posted them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: OCguy

And here you have it folks. Given a choice between an American (D) president, and Chavez, Craig defends Chavez. :laugh:

Pick better idols.

Some people are so far to the left that they have lost their abilities to reason.

None of these leftists in Latin America has really done anything right to make things better for their people. Yet they are defended because the leftists down there also believe in "spreading the wealth".

And the liberal up here believe in the hype.

You are being an idiot, CPA.

 

[BarrySotero]

Obama yawned over Iran (called uproar a "vigorous debate" or something stupid like that) and the now those kids in Iran get their head bashed in easier because Obama flicked it off his radar. Now Obama sure got involved quick with his Marxist dictator buddies. What a disgrace.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama yawned over Iran (called uproar a "vigorous debate" or something stupid like that) and the now those kids in Iran get their head bashed in easier because Obama flicked it off his radar. Now Obama sure got involved quick with his Marxist dictator buddies. What a disgrace.

You're the disgrace, attacking Obaa for consistently standing up for democracy in each case. In both, he's expressed support for democracy and declined to get directly involved.

In both, he's done what helps in terms of not causing problems with the US throwing its weight around, giving the Iranian leaders an excuse to blame the US, and in not offending nations to our south by trying to use force to get what it wants, which causes problems with relations there.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
obama is in the wrong here if he is suggesting this dude shouldn't have been removed

By Military force and exiled? How would you have felt if Bush would have been arrested in the middle of the night and flown to Mexico?

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama yawned over Iran (called uproar a "vigorous debate" or something stupid like that) and the now those kids in Iran get their head bashed in easier because Obama flicked it off his radar. Now Obama sure got involved quick with his Marxist dictator buddies. What a disgrace.

You're the disgrace, attacking Obaa for consistently standing up for democracy in each case. In both, he's expressed support for democracy and declined to get directly involved.

In both, he's done what helps in terms of not causing problems with the US throwing its weight around, giving the Iranian leaders an excuse to blame the US, and in not offending nations to our south by trying to use force to get what it wants, which causes problems with relations there.

LOL "Obama standing up for democracy"

The Hondura military had an obligation to protect democracy in Honduras when President Mel Zelaya tried to monkey with Honduran Constitution like Chavez did. Obama is standing up for a wannbe dictator - birds of a feather lock together and Obama is just like these creeps.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy
Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.

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