Honduras (catch all)

[J Wolfsberger]

You raise an interesting question about whose mobs are bigger. Most of what I've seen suggests that the mobs supporting the congress/court etc crowd are/were bigger. Then, starting yesterday it seems, the international press began talking about the size of the mobs supporting Zelaya with less mention of the mobs supporting the other side. Comparative mobology is a measure of popular support in the absence of decent public opinion polls but it is easliy distorted by the agendas of those who report it.

Let's not forget the helpful types from other Leftist regimes encouraging, and I would guess financing, the "spontaneous" outpourings of support for Zelaya.

[slapout9]

More Mobology.


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...4&jumival=3975

[tequila]

J Wolfsberger,

However, let us also not forget that the Honduran coup government is also sponsoring, protecting, and encouraging the pro-coup protests. If you guess that anti-coup protests are being financed by Leftists, one could just as easily guess that pro-coup protests are being financed by the government, the military, or wealthy right-wing interests that back the coup. Such speculation makes just as much as sense as the other.

Meanwhile anti-coup protests are generally met with tear gas and riot police, while we already have video evidence of one incident where government troops prevented people from attending an anti-coup demonstration in Tegulcipa by shooting out their bus tires.

[J Wolfsberger]

However, let us also not forget that the Honduran coup government is also sponsoring, protecting, and encouraging the pro-coup protests. If you guess that anti-coup protests are being financed by Leftists, one could just as easily guess that pro-coup protests are being financed by the government, the military, or wealthy right-wing interests that back the coup. Such speculation makes just as much as sense as the other.

I would hope they are. Don't however, completely discount spontaneity. Reports I've read, in the reputable non-Leftist media (such as there is of it) have described support for the ouster of Zelaya as "widespread," "popular," etc., not as "unanimous."

Meanwhile anti-coup protests are generally met with tear gas and riot police, while we already have video evidence of one incident where government troops prevented people from attending an anti-coup demonstration in Tegulcipa by shooting out their bus tires.

Probably true. The Left has such a sterling reputation for peaceful, non-violent protest, especially in Latin America, that the response of Honduran authorities is baffling.

[John T. Fishel]

would you have described the military's action in Honduras as a coup if the military had arrested Zelaya, cuffed him, a perp walked him to his arragnment before jailing him, IAW the orders of the Supreme Court?

[tequila]

The Left has such a sterling reputation for peaceful, non-violent protest, especially in Latin America, that the response of Honduran authorities is baffling.

As sterling as the Right's reputation for peaceful tolerance of dissent?

I would hope they are.

Just so long as you make your rooting interest clear. Given that you hope the pro-coup protesters are being funded adequately, why shouldn't anti-coup demonstrators be equally well paid?

would you have described the military's action in Honduras as a coup if the military had arrested Zelaya, cuffed him, a perp walked him to his arragnment before jailing him, IAW the orders of the Supreme Court?

Yes. A non-binding referendum on the possibility of enacting a Constituent Assembly does not justify the forceful removal of the President IMO. However, the expulsion harms their case even further. The juvenile attempt to fake a resignation letter makes them look even less serious. If it had been a binding referendum, say, on extending the presidential term in office, that would be another story.

A little hard to pose as as a defender of the constitution, however, if you start off by blatantly violating one of its articles.

[Ken White]

As sterling as the Right's reputation for peaceful tolerance of dissent?

Fools and fanatics on both sides stifle dissent, some try more 'legal' ways than other but all things considered, both sides are guilty. Constantly. Neither deserves protection for that.

...Given that you hope the pro-coup protesters are being funded adequately, why shouldn't anti-coup demonstrators be equally well paid?

This obviously drove my subject line above. I realize the idea of the nation-state is passé to some but there are far, far more people who sort of like the idea. Regardless, if I give my neighbors young teenagers money for booze, he's likely to get upset; if he does that, it may not be better than had I done so but it will be far more acceptable to him -- and the other neighbors.

Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...

A little hard to pose as as a defender of the constitution, however, if you start off by blatantly violating one of its articles.

Yes, that's true. Er, were you referring to Zelaya, who erred first in that vain, or to the Supreme Court and the Army?

[tequila]

Yes, that's true. Er, were you referring to Zelaya, who erred first in that vain, or to the Supreme Court and the Army?

I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

[Rex Brynen]

I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

While I agree that forced exile at gunpoint was inappropriate, the constitutionality of Zelaya's referendum is rather murky, given that there is no constitutional provision for a constituent assembly. Rather, only Congress can modify the constitution:

ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.

Moreover, even Congress can't change the provisions regarding presidential term limits:

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

In other words, Zelaya seems to have been clearly headed in an anti-constitutional direction, and one that might have hard to stop after his "nonbinding" (and, according to the courts, illegal) referendum.

Did the Honduran courts, Congress, and military handle this as well as they might? Probably not.

[Ken White]

beyond rusty, but doesn't Article 42, section 5 of their Constitution provide some evidence that Zelaya's attempt to have his non-binding resolution was a case of a Honduran citizen attempting to modify Presidential terms and succession criteria...

Also, note that the Referendum was initially supposed to be binding and when it was pointed out to Zelaya that was illegal, he verbally made it 'non-binding.' What he would've contend after the fact, we don't know.

All that's not nearly as important as this comment of mine: ""Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...""

We have two wrongs; as my Kindergarten Teacher told me, that doesn't make a right. Throw in Hugo meddling and passing out tractors and you have three wrongs. You can't make that right...

Fair, as the Bishop said to the Actress, is fair.

[John T. Fishel]

- supposedly self-enforcing - prohibit actions that directly or indirectly lead to extending a presidential term.

Let me pose one more question, Tequila:

Would you still call it a coup if the arrest on the order of the Supreme Court had been carried out by the National Police who had then cuffed Zelaya and perp walked him to jail and thence to court for his arraignment?

[AnalyticType]

I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

???

Zelaya did not say "Hey! Let's vote on having a big town hall meeting of our constituents and see what they have to say." There is only one purpose for convening a National Constitutional Assembly, as is quoted and bolded below, and that is to propose changing the Constitution. Zelaya had been inching toward this for most of his presidency, and while the Congress and the Supreme Court had been letting a lot of it slide, the proposal to convene a National Constitutional Assembly triggered the extreme actions taken by the government. This was not done on a whim, but because of the entire chain of events leading up to it.

Going back to the CS Monitor article which Ken linked in his post at the bottom of page 3:

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

That provision appears to be Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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." Note the bolded and italicized sections, for those are the operating conditions in this situation

[...] When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Under Article 239, intent to change the Constitution's immutable articles (the seven previously mentioned), which Zelaya actually enforced by issuing a presidential decree that made mandatory the involvement of all government employees, required that Zelaya immediately cease to act as President of Honduras.

The Supreme Court said that the referendum Zelaya was fixin' to hold was unconstitutional, and whether it was non-binding or not is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The Supreme Court prohibitted the referendum explicitly because the Constitution states that NO referendi may be held within six months of a presidential election.. Zelaya broke into the warehouse where the ballots had been secured by order of the Supreme Court, due to the illegality of the proposed action, and ordered the supporters with him to distribute the ballots....which they did! But this was after Zelaya had ordered the army's Commander to do the distribution...and when the Commander refused because the Supreme Court had already declared the activity unconstitutional, Zelaya fired the General...which Zelaya does not have the authority to do!

This is not a simple "but it was just a proposed opinion poll!" situation, but rather is significantly more complex and condemnatory. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

[Dayuhan]

All that's not nearly as important as this comment of mine: ""Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...""

We have two wrongs; as my Kindergarten Teacher told me, that doesn't make a right. Throw in Hugo meddling and passing out tractors and you have three wrongs.

True, but that point is difficult for Americans to make without someone pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black. Best for us to sit back and let others make the point.

We can argue forever over whether what was done was justifiable or not, but the argument is of limited relevance. What was done is done, the question is what to do about it. I would personally prefer to see the US on the sidelines as much as possible: some tepid rhetorical support for Zelaya, or for the OAS as mediator, would be appropriate, as would an offer to host a diplomatic conference. Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.

The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.

[Valin]

WSJ: Honduras at the Tipping Point
Why is the U.S. not supporting the rule of law?
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
7/6/09

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

(snip)

[AnalyticType]

[...] Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.

The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.

Regardless of how we or American society at large, or Chavez or anyone else thinks, it is not anyone's place to determine for Honduras how it should be handled. They are a sovereign state, whether we like how they handled their business or not.

[tequila]

Would you still call it a coup if the arrest on the order of the Supreme Court had been carried out by the National Police who had then cuffed Zelaya and perp walked him to jail and thence to court for his arraignment?

No, I wouldn't. At least there would be the provision for legal due process to determine if the President was in violation of the law, rather than simply the presumption combined with use of force.

Under Article 239, intent to change the Constitution's immutable articles (the seven previously mentioned), which Zelaya actually enforced by issuing a presidential decree that made mandatory the involvement of all government employees, required that Zelaya immediately cease to act as President of Honduras.

The text of the referendum is as follows:

¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí…….ó………..No.

Where is the language there violating any of the supposed immutable articles? There is nothing suggesting a second term for the presidency. You might have a case if the referendum mentioned the issue, but it clearly doesn't.

The Supreme Court prohibitted the referendum explicitly because the Constitution states that NO referendi may be held within six months of a presidential election.

Where in the Constitution does it state this? It doesn't.

The Honduran legislature passed a law on June 23, 2009 forbidding plebiscites and referenda within 180 days of a presidential election. Zelaya argued that this was a non-binding survey rather than either a plebiscite or referendum, and also that the law didn't apply as the survey had already been scheduled by the time it passed. Can't find the actual language of the bill to see if it applied retroactively. However, this ban certainly isn't in the Constitution, unlike the ban on forcibly ejecting Honduran citizens from the country.

This is not a simple "but it was just a proposed opinion poll!" situation, but rather is significantly more complex and condemnatory. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

Clearly, but as a legal and constitutional issue Zelaya is not even close to being the only one at fault. The only clear violation of the Constitution in this entire affair is the military's removal of Zelaya from the country.

[Ken White]

True, but that point is difficult for Americans to make without someone pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black. Best for us to sit back and let others make the point.

""What we should have done is express concern about the way it was done while in the same speech roundly and solidly and very publicly criticizing Chavez and Ortega for interfering in Honduras and encouraging Zelaya to attempt to subvert his own constitution. LINK.

We can argue forever over whether what was done was justifiable or not, but the argument is of limited relevance.

Totally agree. However arguments that state Zelaya was ill handled and that ignore the Chavez and Ortega meddling are both disingenuous and misleading; whether intentional or not. I'm not a pedant nor am I an overly fair person -- but I see no sense in allowing factual errors to flow without comment.

...some tepid rhetorical support for Zelaya, or for the OAS as mediator, would be appropriate, as would an offer to host a diplomatic conference. Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.

Disagree. Bad technique when dealing with the "ask for a millimeter, take an inch and try for a foot" crowd. You need to call them on it, publicly but calmly and with evidence (which I do not doubt we have aside from things in the media), so they can bluster an make themselves and their ploy obvious to all. To do what you suggest lets them slide. As many times over the past forty plus years we've let errant criminality slide and paid a price, we never seem to learn that is not a good idea.

The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.

On that we can totally agree -- but we need to be extremely even handed in our public comments. To not do so when most in South and Central America know what is really happening makes us look like we're in the go along and get along mode; not a good position for us.

[slapout9]

Some more Mobology. This was posted 4 hours ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSvgNbLIEsI

Main group is called: National Coordinator of Popular Resistance

[Ron Humphrey]

In relation to the whole issue wasn't one of the reasons for such organizations as US AID , USIA, etc specifically to have been able to address issues exactly like this involving our allies or others before they get to such a stage that it becomes more difficult to define or determine where we need to stand and in what ways.?

[Ken White]

In relation to the whole issue wasn't one of the reasons for such organizations as US AID , USIA, etc specifically to have been able to address issues exactly like this involving our allies or others before they get to such a stage that it becomes more difficult to define or determine where we need to stand and in what ways.?

ran Voice of America and other radio stations, ran libraries away from the US Embassy in other nations and such like.

Info on what was going on in the country came from four sources (theoretically), The Embassy, whose Political, and Economic counsellors and their various minions from Agriculture, Commerce etc. fed stuff into the Country Desk back at State Hindquarters in DC and into State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, their intel folks (who have a really good reputation -- or did); the Defense Attaches for overt (mostly) military and mil-related intel and info through DIA; the CIA Station in country and other sources ranging from NSA to US military mobile training teams, other nations and drop in news bringers. That deliberately omits the FBI in some countries, DEA in some countries and a few others that aren't everywhere. Nominally, the President and NSC would get info from the CIA, perhaps different info from State and yet again from DIA.

Problem is none of those guys like to share (in DC, information is power), none of them like to see anyone else get credit for anything so there's constant jockeying over who can tell what to who. Add to that, sometimes one would say the Moon is made of green cheese, another the it was Bleu Fromage and yet another that it was all rock. Who to believe? Got to be an easier way.

To fix this, we created the Director of National Intelligence -- who now gets all the input, consolidates it, eliminates any thing that might come back to haunt the Intelligence Community and presents it to the NSC and Pres.

Then the NSC and the Pres huddle and come up with an idea of what to say. Sometimes they take the line recommended by the State Department, sometimes not. Sometimes they bring in the Vice President, sometimes not. sometimes, as with Iran yesterday, State Says one thing, the vice President another. So today, the WH can come out and says "What the Vice President really meant was..."

Well, you get the idea, sounds bureaucratic, doesn't it...

As you may have noticed, the one bug in the system is that we seem to frequently not be informed of forthcoming events in other nations that are picked up weeks earlier by casual travelers. Honduras is an example. Then when you'd think we'd have our talking points down weeks after the election, something like the conflicting messages on Iran yesterday occurs.

All part of a well oiled machine designed to confuse the world...