Honduras (catch all)

[AnalyticType]

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.

That's why I'm wondering specifically what "crime" Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces, seems to be acknowledging. By the way, I used the quotation marks because those are Inestroza's words. I wonder, then, if that worthy individual is hedging his bets? Because absolutely no mention was made of a particular law or laws broken per se, just that laws were 'circumvented,' this is a valid question methinks.

[Ken White]

or more for all the non-essential clutter to get stripped away and for even reasonably accurate facts to emerge.

I'm pretty well convinced that the American predilection to over react comes from growing up with a short news cycle filled with hyperbole and misstatement if not outright lies.

We'll see what he meant before long, I expect.

[Rex Brynen]

...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"?

Nothing in the constitution allows one to short-circuit due process of law by exiling someone, and Article 81 would appear to explicitly prohibit it:

Article 81 .- Everyone has the right to move freely, leave, enter and remain in the country.

Nobody can be forced to change his domicile or residence except in special cases and with the requirements established by law.

Of course, one could argue that the President had forfeited his citizenship by virtue of Article 42.4, and hence this legal protection:

ARTICLE 42 .- The status/quality/condition (calidad) of citizen is lost:

...

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuance or re-election of President of the Republic,

EXCEPT that this only takes place "by governmental agreement (acuerdo gubernativo), after the sentence handed down by courts." I don't fully understand the constitutional status of such an agreement (which is only mentioned in this article) under Honduran law, but one might argue that it requires executive (presidential) approval.

The argument that Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza seems to be making is that had the military followed due process, and arrested Zelaya so that he could be put on trial, the process would have been dangerously destabilizing—and that therefore exile was an operational necessity (and might legally be defended as such). Then again, the same interview makes clear the military's visceral and potentially anti-democratic dislike of leftist politicians (although I remain to be convinced that Zelaya was genuinely leftist, and not merely an ambitious and slightly nutty quasi-populist with his own anti-democratic leanings).

On a side note, the apparent provisions for loss of citizenship in the Honduran constitution are very problematic—statelessness ought NOT to be used as a form of punishment.

[John T. Fishel]

while you have articulated clearly and correctly (IMO) the situation, your normative statement on what the Homduran Constitution should or should not include is not appropriate. Although I tend to agree with you, it is somewhat more understandable in the CENTAM context where loss of citizenship tends to be temporary and movement to another CENTAM city state is fairly common. It is appropriate to criticize the HO constitution on instrumental grounds as the self-enforcing provision of Art 239 is unworkable or disallowing the forced exile of a HO citizen (Zelaya in this case) might well have created a situation of unwarranted violence (Inostroza's argument and defense). I would also add that the Herald headline sensationalizes what Inostroa actually said - he appears to acknowledge a technical violation of law...

Cheers

JohnT

[AnalyticType]

Nothing in the constitution allows one to short-circuit due process of law by exiling someone, and Article 81 would appear to explicitly prohibit it:

Of course, one could argue that the President had forfeited his citizenship by virtue of Article 42.4, and hence this legal protection:

[...]

On a side note, the apparent provisions for loss of citizenship in the Honduran constitution are very problematic—statelessness ought NOT to be used as a form of punishment.

I wonder then, in the 27 years that this Constitution has been in effect, whether this perhaps is the first such instance in which a Honduran politician has overstepped this particular line, such that they never codified the follow-through processes?

I did note that Article 239 stipulates loss of the right to hold public office for 10 years. In practice, is it possible that Article 42 is tied to Article 239, such that the loss of citizenship is for the same finite period of time - 10 years? I saw no literal connection between the two in the Constitution, but as they are directly related due to subject matter could they also be in practice?

......................................

On a thoroughly weird side note: Y'all may have read in my intro thread that until recently I was attending college in Erie PA (undergrad)? The guy who runs the International Student Admissions recruiting has an attraction to Honduras (particularly las hondureñas) and that country is represented by the largest group of international students on campus. The last couple years I was there, so was Zelaya's daughter (or one of them)...not under that last name.

[slapout9]

The argument that Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza seems to be making is that had the military followed due process, and arrested Zelaya so that he could be put on trial, the process would have been dangerously destabilizing—and that therefore exile was an operational necessity (and might legally be defended as such). Then again, the same interview makes clear the military's visceral and potentially anti-democratic dislike of leftist politicians (although I remain to be convinced that Zelaya was genuinely leftist, and not merely an ambitious and slightly nutty quasi-populist with his own anti-democratic leanings).

I say this is a far more accurate portrayal of Zelaya....his real crime was pissing of the RPC (rich peoples club) that is why he was exiled to give him time change his ways or he will forfeit a huge fortune. Just follow the money to see what will happen and that includes the economic impact on the Honduran people who will likely suffer the most of all involved. Time to go celebrate my Independence

[John T. Fishel]

don't cha go makin assumptions. Doesn't appear to be purely the RPC that wanted Zelaya out.

[Rex Brynen]

while you have articulated clearly and correctly (IMO) the situation, your normative statement on what the Homduran Constitution should or should not include is not appropriate.

John—you're absolutely right that its a normative statement, but having spent virtually all of my professional career working with stateless people, I'll stick by it!

[John T. Fishel]

I hear ya but I think you could have counched that argument in instrumental terms so that it would be an appropriate critique of the HO Const. For instance, depriving one of citizenship as punshment creates problems of interstate relations as well as for those orgs that must deal w/the stateless and for the state iteself. (Just trying to be helpful here)

Cheers

JohnT

[slapout9]

don't cha go makin assumptions. Doesn't appear to be purely the RPC that wanted Zelaya out.

I don't have to worry I got you guys to keep me in line, besides since Tony Stewart won the race last night I will be able to concentrate better today

[John T. Fishel]

Tony Stewart?

[AnalyticType]

Tony Stewart?

[slapout9]

John.....Richard Petty was and is the King, but he is retired so here is Mr. Stewart with a short video of the finish last night


http://www.nascar.com/

[AnalyticType]

Zelaya's plane was prevented from landing, so off he went to El Salvador while stating to the press that he would try again Monday or Tuesday.

Hmmm...

[Watcher In The Middle]

POTUS has to be seriously unhappy with all of these goings-on, but in truth, he put himself there.

He's got to deal with the Russians this week, and that's the "big time" by virtually any standards, and he's being tugged at over Honduras, and the whole show is being orchestrated through Zelaya's trying to fly back home. Bad strategy on his part, other side already realizes time is on their side.

Honduras has already figured out all they have to do is go "four corners" and play out the clock, because there's no shot clock on this one, so they make it to January, 2010, and they're golden. Game over.

They hold free and fair elections in 2010 and all's back and well in Honduras.

Watch and wait for it. That will be the story line this next week or so, and that gets POTUS off the hook (takes into 2010, but ok).

Now, folks like Danny Ortega next door could create problems, which would really create an unhappy bunch at the WH as so far he's gotten a pass on Honduras. But that can change on a dime - and realize, it's mostly going to be people in his own party who are going to be throwing the bricks.

Please pass the popcorn....

[Dayuhan]

Given the historical baggage that the US carries in any Latin American situation, I personally think the US made the right move in joining the rhetorical outburst against Zelaya's ouster. Support for the move would have lent Zelaya legitimacy in many quarters and allowed him to portray himself as a martyr: the narrative of "evil CIA engineers military coup against popular left-leaning leader" is so thoroughly entrenched in the Latin American psyche that it will be believed whether or not it is appropriate. The last thing the US wants to do is put Zelaya on a pedestal as the Allende of this century. That does nothing at all for US interests and plays directly into the hands of the Hugo crowd. I am sure that Chavez was desperately hoping the US would support the move against Zelaya.

To me the logical US position is:

1. Offer rhetorical support to Zelaya, but no more than rhetorical support.

2. Stress the need for a diplomatic resolution, rather than a confrontation that could build into violence.

3. Let the diplomatic solution drag on until the electoral process renders the issue moot.

The electoral solution is not that far off: once the campaign gets under way, as long as it is visibly free and inclusive, Zelaya will quickly be reduced to an anachronism. Ideally Micheletti will choose not to run, but I suppose that's too much to hope for...

[John T. Fishel]

be correct. Elections are, ideed, shceduled for theis Fall. And, wonder of wonders, Micheletti has said he has no interest in running. I personally put the odds on that being true at 70/30 in favor.

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

The streets have to settle down. Can't be accomplished by force (alone). This whole situation should be a wake-up call for the traditional power brokers in HO and elsewhere in the region. It's time for meaningful change in the socio-economic systems in the region.

I had a rev war professor in grad school who liked to point out that in LATAM specifically, rev war was usually waged by one group of the educated elite against another. The "prolitariat" that got swept up in the violence ended up getting screwed just as badly by the new masters as they had been under the old regime. So the Castro family replaced the Batistas, Ortegas the Somozas, etc.

How good or bad the situation is in HO is a question for some of you regional experts. I would simply note as an outsider that Zelaya has been able to put a lot of people in the streets in his support.

[John T. Fishel]

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.

Cheers

JohnT

[tequila]

Zelaya turned back, 1 demonstrator killed by soldiers at Tegulcipa airport.

World Bank 'pauses' aid lending to Honduras.