Rex, you are correct in your
interpretation of Honduran events and the reaction to them, except - there's always an except - that it appears to be a fear of something that did not happen being greater than the fear of what actually was in the process of taking place. The slow rolling usurpation of the power of the other four constitutional branches of government by pseudo constitutional means was thwarted by something that looked, on its surface, as if it might, could be a coup. So, shile the reaction of states like Canada and Chile, and of organizations like the UNGA and the OAS, and statesmen like Insulza (as I suggested in an earlier post on Insulza) or Harper, is understandable, it is simply wrong according to the facts as they appear to be. A significant part of the problem of understanding the events lies in the fact that the HO constitution appears not to provide a clear impeachment remedy...
Cheers
JohnT
Change in policy - debate of the dead ....
Looks like a shift in policy to some extent - note that the Obama administration has backed off from the initial rhetoric of Pres. Obama and Ms. Clinton. The cartoon of three parrots (Castro, Chavez & Ortega) way out on the limb, and Pres. Obama as the 4th parrot, on the limb but with some separation, overstates the case (IMO).
My fantasy this evening would be to resurrect and have a debate on the present US policy between the following dead folks: Colonel King, David Atlee Phillips and Cord Meyer - how's that for spanning the political spectrum ? :D
I suppose we should add Desmond Fitzgerald to gain some Gaelic color. ;)
I can't see the cartoon....
jmm,
Your link to the professionalsoldiers.com forum works, and I can see the jpg link in the post you referenced. But clicking on the jpg link requires signing in to view the image. Can you post the cartoon here??
:D I should think that Garlic adds more aroma than color. Ah'm just sayin'... :wry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Looks like a shift in policy to some extent - note that the Obama administration has backed off from the initial rhetoric of Pres. Obama and Ms. Clinton. The
cartoon of three parrots (Castro, Chavez & Ortega) way out on the limb, and Pres. Obama as the 4th parrot, on the limb but with some separation, overstates the case (IMO).
My fantasy this evening would be to resurrect and have a debate on the present US policy between the following dead folks:
Colonel King,
David Atlee Phillips and
Cord Meyer - how's that for spanning the political spectrum ? :D
I suppose we should add
Desmond Fitzgerald to gain some Gaelic color. ;)
Is that really the question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
Does leadership = disagreeing with everyone else, i.e. the rest of the world?
Or is it 'does leadership equal simply doing what's right?' Regardless of what others do.
Quote:
...the line of every single one of our Latin American allies, every single one of our European allies.
I hate to tell you this but the vast majority of the people you named are not our allies -- far from it. They may not be enemies and they'll try to get along with us because its expedient but they aren't allies.
Quote:
To believe that opposition to the coup = surrendering leadership of Latin America to Chavez is even sillier.
Chavez, no matter how much he'd like that will never lead South America. I for one did not say he would or that we were surrendering to him. What I did say was that he would twist our actions to his benefit if possible and unless we backed off a bit -- which we sensibly seem to be doing. :cool:
I also submit that while many are calling it a coup, it doesn't really meet most of the criteria for one. To go back to your initial point quoted above; we should simply do what is right and while there may or may not be problems with Honduras' actions (well, at least three Arms of their governments actions) there are problems with Chavez and Ortega encouraging the actions of Zelaya. Condemn the one action if you wish -- but you should also condemn the other. As should the US.
That's what we're doing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
And what if people disagree about what the right thing to do is?
and that's also what I suspect is going on in Foggy Bottom and the White House. Some hope that argument will go one way, some the other way. Nothing new in the US where rarely do we agree on much. That's okay, too many of us and the nation's too big for unaminity of view.
It would be nice if we could disagree like we usually have with just a little less unnecessary acrimony that seems too prevalent today -- but even that factor waxes and wanes... :D
Quote:
I doubt that the right thing often involves kidnapping an elected President out of his bed, throwing him out of the country, and faking a resignation letter as your explanation to the world.
there are some things we can disagree about -- kidnapped or arrested on a Court Order? Throwing him out of the country or throwing him in jail? Choices... :wry:
I agree on the letter, that was dumb. In fact, if you'll recall, I said they shouldn't have done what they did. My concern was and is the action of the US. Got no problem criticizing the Honduran action -- but in my view if we do that, it must be tempered by criticizing the intrusion of Ol' Hugo and even older Daniel and if we're going to criticize the one; we IMO have an obligation to criticize the other. I think we should criticize the Honduran action but it is equally important to criticize Venezuelan and Nicaraguan meddling. Mayhap even a little more important, lest they think we're excessively stupid. not to mention that fair's fair.
Quote:
But again, the Heritage Foundation analyst didn't mention morality at all...
Didn't read the Heritage thing -- I totally ignore pundits and Think Tanks, most provide little but foolishness so I never read them unless forced and thus can't comment on that. I can comment on morality -- that's a personal construct; people differ. Your take, mine, slapout's and that heritage analyst all differ so referring to morality is very much a personal belief and perception. Nations don't have morals, people do. Nations can't act morally, people can. Nations can be honest (most of the time, not always) and nations can and should pursue their interests. In my view it is in our interest to tell the Hondurans they didn't do it right -- even though by their law it appears they mostly did (at least according to this guy LINK -- it is also in our interest to point out to the interlopers that said interloping isn't cool.
Quote:
However, I think Chavez would be trying to twist our actions no matter what we did --- notice that the first thing he did, right before we condemned the coup, was to claim that the CIA was behind it.
True but as most in the Americas if not the world are aware of his meddling in Honduras, doesn't hurt to call him on it. Probably do more good than harm
Beyond a mere proposal, though
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
Interview with Honduras' top military lawyer.
With regards to the idea that Zelaya automatically removed himself from office, one can only say that he proposed a non-binding referendum on whether or not to convene a national constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution. He did not propose to abolish term limits. Now you could certainly argue that his intent was to eventually do this, certainly his Honduran enemies may have jumped to this conclusion. But thusfar he had not done so. Removing and exiling a president by force for a nonbinding referendum appears to me a bridge too far.
Zelaya ignored the Supreme Court's injunction, broke into the warehouse where the prepared ballots were locked up, removed those ballots from their storage, and had his people distribute them. This indicates significantly more than a mere proposal.
I understand where you're coming from, but by the letter of their laws, his actions show that Zelaya in fact crossed a huge line.
I am curious though, about the article that you linked above. After having read it, particularly this paragraph:
Quote:
''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.'' [Emphasis added by AT]
...my question, without sarcasm, "What crime?" I ask because there is no delineation in the Constitution as to the manner of the removal. Specifically what crime was committed "in the way that he was taken out"?
Depends on one's perspective, I suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
...Removing and exiling a president by force for a nonbinding referendum appears to me a bridge too far.
Does to many; that it does to the predominately leftish governments in Central and South America today (not to mention the Social Demeocrats in Europe) -- who are leading the 'international' hue and cry is at least sort of interesting. I'm inclined to believe had Zelaya been a right leaning type with the same proclivities a great many would be saying good riddance instead of what they are saying.
That the Hondurans have seen the result of other Left leaning, semi charismatic figures opting ever so gently (initially...) for extended Presidencies and the resultant economic problems for the nations involved possibly influenced their thinking on their matter...
I think just the fact that he was exiled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AnalyticType
...my question, without sarcasm, "What crime?" I ask because there is no delineation in the Constitution as to the manner of the removal. Specifically what crime was committed "in the way that he was taken out"?
As I understand it, the Constitution says immediate removal and no office for 10 years -- exile isn't specified nor is a trial. The phony letter was an added and unnecessary fillip.