Honduras "coup" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

asaris · 07-09-2009, 04:10 AM

So in between accounts of Michael Jackson's death, I noticed that there has been a change in the government in Honduras. The mainstream media, Obama, and Chavez are describing it as a coup. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it really doesn't seem like a military coup. As I understand it, the military arrested the old president at the behest of the Supreme Court. There is still civilian control, there are still plans to have elections next year, so where's the coup?

dippin · 07-09-2009, 05:28 AM

Of course it is a coup. Whatever crimes he was charged with do not force him to give up power, and a letter of resignation was either faked or coerced. As such, nothing allowed the military to expel him from the country.

As for the new government democratic intentions, let's just say that when the military starts shooting against protesters, I very much doubt their democratic ideals.

Rekna · 07-09-2009, 06:46 AM

They stormed his complex in the morning, put him at gun point on a plane, and sent him to another country.

This is clearly a coup. The president may have been attempting power grabs but there were still legal means to stop him. Instead the military used force to remove the current president and install another president illegally.

The scary part is the new president was installed via the military. This means he has influence with the military and is not afraid to use that influence. Right now he is technically a dictator that claims he won't run at the end of the year but it really isn't known if there is any truth to that.

The previous president was democratically elected and as much as someone might dislike him that was the will of the people. This coup was sprung by the military not the people. If it had been the people rising up i'd be ok with it as it would still be a form of democracy.

roachboy · 07-09-2009, 07:22 AM

i like the oed.

coup d'etat:

Quote:

5. French phrases frequent in English use. a. coup d'état (ku deta) [F. état state]: a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
1646 HOWELL Lewis XIII, Life of Richelieu 157 These were the two first Coups d'estat, stroaks of State that he made. 1811 WELLINGTON in Gurw. Desp. VIII. 352, I shall be sorry to commence the era of peace by a coup d'état such as that which I had in contemplation. 1859 GEN. P. THOMPSON Audi Alt. II. xcviii. 87 A coup d'état as effectual for the time as that of Louis Napoleon [2 Dec. 1851].

i'm not sure how helpful this is for folk because it's in french, but this is a quite good summary of the states of affairs that issued into the coup:

Retour des « gorilles » au Honduras

if you see the action in these more or less lines of force terms, it's obviously a coup d'etat.

hopefully i'll have a bit of time and can generate an outline (or someone else can--feel free)...the english version of le monde diplo works at a considerable lag with a narrower focus than do the french versions. it's still an interesting resource

Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

but the article linked above has no correlate there. search honduras, though: there's other material to read.
enjoy in the way one enjoys such things.

aceventura3 · 07-09-2009, 08:08 AM

Assuming the Honduras President was removed illegally by military force, what should the US do about it? UN? Why? Why not?

dksuddeth · 07-09-2009, 11:49 AM

this was not a coup. The former president tried to initiate a referendum in clear violation of Honduran law. The honduran supreme court invalidated the referendum call in accordance with honduran law. The honduran congress wrote a new law that passed overwhelmingly that further restricted the ability of said former president to initiate any referendum. The former president then ordered the commander of the honduran forces to distribute the referendum votes anyway and he refused. The former president then removed the commander from his post and replaced him with another commander in another clear violation of honduran law. The honduran court then invalidated this move in accordance with honduran law. The honduran constitution has no set procedures for an impeachment so the honduran congress elected to have him removed from office, approved in accordance with honduran law by the honduran courts, and then ordered the military to arrest and then exile former president.

The honduran congress then elected an interim president until the normal election cycle happens. This new interim president will not even be a candidate for the next general election, at which time the people of honduras will constitutionally elect a new president.

This was not a coup.

Rekna · 07-09-2009, 11:57 AM

If it wasn't a coup then why didn't they just arrest him? Why ship hiim out and replace him. You yourself have said there is no legal method for them to replace him but yet they did it. Thus it is a coup.

The only thing the US can do is condem and cut trade/funding. We are not the world police and so far people are not dieing in the streets. If the UN wishes to act then militarily then that is a different story.

dksuddeth · 07-09-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If it wasn't a coup then why didn't they just arrest him? Why ship hiim out and replace him. You yourself have said there is no legal method for them to replace him but yet they did it. Thus it is a coup.

it would only be a coup if the military had acted without regards to the honduran congress and/or the courts. Since the former president seemed unwilling to abide by both the constitution and laws/orders of the courts, the remaining branches of government did the only thing left to them and that was remove him from office. The military did NOT assume control of the country because the elected representatives of the people of honduras ELECTED an interim president, this was from members of both controlling parties, not just a majority party. General elections are going to be held at the regular interval dates just like normal. The people of honduras remain in control of their country through the elected representatives that they sent to office.

This was not a coup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The only thing the US can do is condem and cut trade/funding. We are not the world police and so far people are not dieing in the streets. If the UN wishes to act then militarily then that is a different story.

what i'm not understanding is why so many nations and their leaders are in an uproar that 2/3rds of the acting government did what they needed to, in accordance with what laws they have, and restored constitutional law in their country. Is it the notion that there is always the possibility that it could happen to them as well if they were to violate the laws and constitution of their nation?

this was not a coup.

dippin · 07-09-2009, 01:23 PM

They did not do what they had to in accordance to the laws they had. Honduran laws don't call for the removal of a president because one of his decisions was overturned by the supreme court, the supreme court cannot order the military to forcibly remove the president, and the honduran congress cannot destitute the president in a single vote, nor can they elect a new one by a simple show of hands.

dksuddeth · 07-09-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

They did not do what they had to in accordance to the laws they had. Honduran laws don't call for the removal of a president because one of his decisions was overturned by the supreme court, the supreme court cannot order the military to forcibly remove the president, and the honduran congress cannot destitute the president in a single vote, nor can they elect a new one by a simple show of hands.

what are the laws in honduras regarding a president who attempts to subvert the constitution and ignore it's supreme court while violating other laws?

Rekna · 07-09-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what are the laws in honduras regarding a president who attempts to subvert the constitution and ignore it's supreme court while violating other laws?

If he broke the law then arrest him and throw him in jail. Let the second in command run the government while he goes to trial. In the mean time pass a bill which sets impeachment procedures.

Of course how can we expect Honduras to do that when we wouldn't even do it for bush. By your own admission we should have been able to forcefully remove Bush as he broke many of our laws.

dippin · 07-09-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what are the laws in honduras regarding a president who attempts to subvert the constitution and ignore it's supreme court while violating other laws?

Well, first of all, let's be specific about Honduras' constitution: it was crafted by an assembly during its last dictatorship, so it's not exactly some sort of holy text.

Of course, that is no excuse to ignore it, but the original issue was over a non-binding referendum. These sorts of referenda are allowed in Honduran constitution. Now, given the efforts to block this referendum, one must question just how unpopular the president really was.

The supreme court ruled this referendum unconstitutional, not because it in itself violated any laws, but because it was less than 180 days from the general election. So yes, as he planned to go ahead with the referendum, Zelaya was indeed overstepping the supreme court. But the result was that both the supreme court and congress then committed much more egregious violations of the constitution to remove him. Zelaya was sequestered and expelled from the nation, and then congress did a one round vote to destitute him and elect someone else (even though nothing in the constitution says that a single congressional vote is enough to remove the president).

So yes, regardless of what Zelaya did, his removal from power was a coup, and given the penchant of the military to shoot at peaceful demonstrations, the idea that what they are doing is protecting the democratic ideals is nonsense.

dksuddeth · 07-09-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If he broke the law then arrest him and throw him in jail. Let the second in command run the government while he goes to trial. In the mean time pass a bill which sets impeachment procedures.

Of course how can we expect Honduras to do that when we wouldn't even do it for bush. By your own admission we should have been able to forcefully remove Bush as he broke many of our laws.

with no legal precedent or constitutional principals laid out for the congress to follow, what should they do?

as to exiling a former ruler, this is world politics. I don't know of a whole lot of countries that would be willing to outright arrest a sitting political leader and charge them with a crime. we don't even do it in this country.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Well, first of all, let's be specific about Honduras' constitution: it was crafted by an assembly during its last dictatorship, so it's not exactly some sort of holy text.

Of course, that is no excuse to ignore it, but the original issue was over a non-binding referendum. These sorts of referenda are allowed in Honduran constitution. Now, given the efforts to block this referendum, one must question just how unpopular the president really was.

if the referendum was allowed by law, then why did the supreme court of honduras rule otherwise? point being, it was not a referendum allowed by law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

The supreme court ruled this referendum unconstitutional, not because it in itself violated any laws, but because it was less than 180 days from the general election. So yes, as he planned to go ahead with the referendum, Zelaya was indeed overstepping the supreme court. But the result was that both the supreme court and congress then committed much more egregious violations of the constitution to remove him. Zelaya was sequestered and expelled from the nation, and then congress did a one round vote to destitute him and elect someone else (even though nothing in the constitution says that a single congressional vote is enough to remove the president).

So yes, regardless of what Zelaya did, his removal from power was a coup, and given the penchant of the military to shoot at peaceful demonstrations, the idea that what they are doing is protecting the democratic ideals is nonsense.

i'm at a loss to understand how you can seriously think that the actions of the honduran congress, the actual representing body of the people, was a more egregious violation of the constitution. moreover, it wasn't just the congress that elected to remove zelaya, but the court as well.

when the constitution does not specifically outline methods to remedy situations concerning violations of law, the peoples will (through their elected representatives) must take precedence. This was not a coup, no matter how you try to frame the argument. the constitutional process is what needs to be followed, not the 'democratic' process.

dippin · 07-09-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

[/COLOR]if the referendum was allowed by law, then why did the supreme court of honduras rule otherwise? point being, it was not a referendum allowed by law.

i'm at a loss to understand how you can seriously think that the actions of the honduran congress, the actual representing body of the people, was a more egregious violation of the constitution. moreover, it wasn't just the congress that elected to remove zelaya, but the court as well.

when the constitution does not specifically outline methods to remedy situations concerning violations of law, the peoples will (through their elected representatives) must take precedence. This was not a coup, no matter how you try to frame the argument. the constitutional process is what needs to be followed, not the 'democratic' process.

I didnt say this referendum was allowed by law, I said referendums in general, like this are allowed by law, and this one was blocked by law because of the 180 days issue.

As far as processes for removal of a president, they ARE spelled out in the Honduran constitution. The supreme court has no power, by law, to order the president to be removed from power. The attorney general asked for the process of impeachment to be started, but congress had not gotten around to it by the time he was expelled from the country. What is more: the original order of the supreme court was just to arrest him (which still would not have removed him of the presidency), and the military decided on its own to exile him. The final piece of the puzzle that makes it all obvious is the faked letter of resignation.

In other words, while Zelaya violated the constitution in many ways, his removal was completely outside the bounds of the Honduran constitution as well. I don't know of any other word to describe the removal of a sitting president without doing the proper constitutional process than coup.

As you probably know well, American presidents have been found in the past of violating the constitution, and some even defied supreme court orders, and a couple even had impeachment processes against them.. Despite that, if the supreme court ever gave the order to the military to pick up the president and drop him off in Mexico, it would be a coup as well.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Oh, and by the way, it seems that the military there is a lot clearer on what they did than some here:
Top Honduran military lawyer: We broke the law - Americas - MiamiHerald.com

dksuddeth · 07-10-2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Oh, and by the way, it seems that the military there is a lot clearer on what they did than some here:
Top Honduran military lawyer: We broke the law - Americas - MiamiHerald.com

:sigh:

one would think that a story of this magnitude would have made bigger headlines and had more coverage out of the media. I had not heard or read this article before.

Xazy · 07-10-2009, 03:42 AM

By the way in case no one noticed, breaking story, MJ still dead.

dksuddeth · 07-10-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

By the way in case no one noticed, breaking story, MJ still dead.

it hasnt been 3 days for him to rise from the grave yet.

dksuddeth · 07-11-2009, 01:56 PM

someone is lying about this whole thing.

Honduras' non-coup - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

Honduras' non-coup
Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.
By Miguel A. Estrada

July 10, 2009

Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup."

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.

What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an "opinion survey." The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the "survey" -- and "fired" him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 -- three days before he was ousted -- Zelaya personally gathered a group of "supporters" and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the "survey" on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya's arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the country's army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court's order on the morning of the proposed survey.

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?
Yet, this is what Obama, Chavez, and Castro are calling for.
No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

Slims · 07-11-2009, 07:19 PM

I can't speak for the Honduran Military and it's constitution, but our Military takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If our President one day became a threat to that constitution the Military would be obligated by oath to remove the threat.

Their military had the backing of the Supreme Court, Congress, and apparently the Honduran People. For them to instead side with someone who was seizing power illegally would have made them complicit in the rise of a dictator...If they had waited longer Zelaya would likely have reinforced his power base and then started to remove strong leaders from the Military to prevent action against him (which he had already started to do, but was blocked by the Supreme Court).

Zelaya was fast-tracking towards dictatorship any reasonable way you look at it...he was attempting to become a 'permanent' president, he was firing military leaders who supported the constitutioin, etc.

dippin · 07-11-2009, 09:00 PM

I think there is some serious misinformation going on. His "fast tracking towards dictatorship" was a non binding referendum about whether there should be an additional vote on whether to rewrite the constitution. So it seems to me that the people would decide whether to suggest that a new constitution would be put to a vote. A constitution, by the way, that was written during their last dictatorship. Now, whatever charges may be brought against Zelaya, and he is no saint, there is zero doubt that he was removed from power illegally, and that coup describes that perfectly. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the military has taken seriously anti-democratic measures, like firing on protesters, since the events started to unfold.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

By the way, Ive never understood the hard on that the American right has for Chavez.

Seaver · 07-11-2009, 09:52 PM

A military overthrow of an elected official who was making a move towards dictatorship while laws on both sides are broken and factions fracture all branches of government?

Welcome to Latin America. Just glad we're not involved this time.

Charlatan · 07-12-2009, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Welcome to Latin America. Just glad we're not involved this time.

At least you hope you aren't...

asaris · 07-13-2009, 04:55 AM

From the Miami Herald article:

Quote:

So when the powers of state united in demanding his ouster, the military put a pajama-clad Zelaya on a plane and sent him to Costa Rica. The rationale: Had Zelaya been jailed, throngs of loyal followers would have erupted into chaos and demanded his release with violence.

Quote:

The attorney general's office had ordered Zelaya's arrest, and the Supreme Court, Inestroza said, ordered the armed forces to carry it out.

I might describe the army's actions as extra-legal, rather than illegal. There wasn't alot (or any) precedent for what they wanted to do. And perhaps exiling him was a bad decision, but it appears that allowing him to remain in the country would have been a bad decision as well. I'm still having trouble describing what happened as a coup. If the military starts to exert undue influence over civilian politicians, then it will start looking more like a coup to me. The key to a military coup is the military seizing control of the government, isn't it? So how is it a coup when the military acts entirely at the command of civilian officials.

Another question: Is this more or less of a coup than when Turkey's army acts to preserve their constitution?

Rekna · 07-13-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

someone is lying about this whole thing.

Honduras' non-coup - Los Angeles Times

OP-Ed's are not always very factual. Since much of this is counter to what has already been said it should be taken with a grain of salt.

dippin · 09-28-2009, 10:27 AM

Hey, look at what the Honduran "non coup" is doing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/wo..._r=1&ref=world

closed dissenting news organizations, prohibited "public meetings," suspended habeas corpus and gave the police the right to imprison anyone they deem necessary. That on top of surrounding the Brazilian embassy, cutting its power, and tossing tear gas inside because Zelaya sought asylum there. Are these measures still just "extra legal?"

Rekna · 09-28-2009, 02:55 PM

This scares me as I have friends in Honduras. I was worried when this initially happened because it was a clear power grab using military force by someone who didn't like the way things currently were. The question you need to ask is if someone is willing to use the military to make a country the way they want it why wouldn't they use the military to keep the country the way they want?

07-09-2009, 04:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Honduras "coup" So in between accounts of Michael Jackson's death, I noticed that there has been a change in the government in Honduras. The mainstream media, Obama, and Chavez are describing it as a coup. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it really doesn't seem like a military coup. As I understand it, the military arrested the old president at the behest of the Supreme Court. There is still civilian control, there are still plans to have elections next year, so where's the coup? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

07-09-2009, 08:08 AM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Assuming the Honduras President was removed illegally by military force, what should the US do about it? UN? Why? Why not? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-09-2009, 11:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	this was not a coup. The former president tried to initiate a referendum in clear violation of Honduran law. The honduran supreme court invalidated the referendum call in accordance with honduran law. The honduran congress wrote a new law that passed overwhelmingly that further restricted the ability of said former president to initiate any referendum. The former president then ordered the commander of the honduran forces to distribute the referendum votes anyway and he refused. The former president then removed the commander from his post and replaced him with another commander in another clear violation of honduran law. The honduran court then invalidated this move in accordance with honduran law. The honduran constitution has no set procedures for an impeachment so the honduran congress elected to have him removed from office, approved in accordance with honduran law by the honduran courts, and then ordered the military to arrest and then exile former president. The honduran congress then elected an interim president until the normal election cycle happens. This new interim president will not even be a candidate for the next general election, at which time the people of honduras will constitutionally elect a new president. This was not a coup. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-11-2009, 07:19 PM	#19 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I can't speak for the Honduran Military and it's constitution, but our Military takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If our President one day became a threat to that constitution the Military would be obligated by oath to remove the threat. Their military had the backing of the Supreme Court, Congress, and apparently the Honduran People. For them to instead side with someone who was seizing power illegally would have made them complicit in the rise of a dictator...If they had waited longer Zelaya would likely have reinforced his power base and then started to remove strong leaders from the Military to prevent action against him (which he had already started to do, but was blocked by the Supreme Court). Zelaya was fast-tracking towards dictatorship any reasonable way you look at it...he was attempting to become a 'permanent' president, he was firing military leaders who supported the constitutioin, etc. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

07-11-2009, 09:52 PM	#21 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	A military overthrow of an elected official who was making a move towards dictatorship while laws on both sides are broken and factions fracture all branches of government? Welcome to Latin America. Just glad we're not involved this time. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

07-09-2009, 05:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Of course it is a coup. Whatever crimes he was charged with do not force him to give up power, and a letter of resignation was either faked or coerced. As such, nothing allowed the military to expel him from the country. As for the new government democratic intentions, let's just say that when the military starts shooting against protesters, I very much doubt their democratic ideals.

07-09-2009, 06:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	They stormed his complex in the morning, put him at gun point on a plane, and sent him to another country. This is clearly a coup. The president may have been attempting power grabs but there were still legal means to stop him. Instead the military used force to remove the current president and install another president illegally. The scary part is the new president was installed via the military. This means he has influence with the military and is not afraid to use that influence. Right now he is technically a dictator that claims he won't run at the end of the year but it really isn't known if there is any truth to that. The previous president was democratically elected and as much as someone might dislike him that was the will of the people. This coup was sprung by the military not the people. If it had been the people rising up i'd be ok with it as it would still be a form of democracy.

07-09-2009, 11:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If it wasn't a coup then why didn't they just arrest him? Why ship hiim out and replace him. You yourself have said there is no legal method for them to replace him but yet they did it. Thus it is a coup. The only thing the US can do is condem and cut trade/funding. We are not the world police and so far people are not dieing in the streets. If the UN wishes to act then militarily then that is a different story.

07-09-2009, 01:23 PM	#9 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	They did not do what they had to in accordance to the laws they had. Honduran laws don't call for the removal of a president because one of his decisions was overturned by the supreme court, the supreme court cannot order the military to forcibly remove the president, and the honduran congress cannot destitute the president in a single vote, nor can they elect a new one by a simple show of hands.

07-10-2009, 03:42 AM	#16 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	By the way in case no one noticed, breaking story, MJ still dead.

07-11-2009, 09:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I think there is some serious misinformation going on. His "fast tracking towards dictatorship" was a non binding referendum about whether there should be an additional vote on whether to rewrite the constitution. So it seems to me that the people would decide whether to suggest that a new constitution would be put to a vote. A constitution, by the way, that was written during their last dictatorship. Now, whatever charges may be brought against Zelaya, and he is no saint, there is zero doubt that he was removed from power illegally, and that coup describes that perfectly. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the military has taken seriously anti-democratic measures, like firing on protesters, since the events started to unfold. ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ---------- By the way, Ive never understood the hard on that the American right has for Chavez.

09-28-2009, 10:27 AM	#25 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Hey, look at what the Honduran "non coup" is doing: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/wo..._r=1&ref=world closed dissenting news organizations, prohibited "public meetings," suspended habeas corpus and gave the police the right to imprison anyone they deem necessary. That on top of surrounding the Brazilian embassy, cutting its power, and tossing tear gas inside because Zelaya sought asylum there. Are these measures still just "extra legal?" Last edited by dippin; 09-28-2009 at 06:25 PM..

09-28-2009, 02:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	This scares me as I have friends in Honduras. I was worried when this initially happened because it was a clear power grab using military force by someone who didn't like the way things currently were. The question you need to ask is if someone is willing to use the military to make a country the way they want it why wouldn't they use the military to keep the country the way they want?