Honduras (catch all)

[slapout9]

He's saying "him" (Zelaya) was making a Power Grab and that the Power Oligarchy (the Four Mouseketeers) gave him a spanking for doing that.

That is exactly what I am saying.......just kause I kant spel dunt mean I kant talk good. If you check.... Zelaya is a wealthy landowner...ah I mean farmer, he is actually part of the ruling elite more than a Marxist baby gang banger. When he made a play to get some extra cookies and milk he gets the big message from the snatch back men. He will have to wonder in the wilderness for awhile and then make a statement saying it was all a big misunderstanding guys and if he promises to play right he will get to come back to his farm. If he dosen't it's broke alley for him.

[John T. Fishel]

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

[Gringo Malandro]

Certainly the expulsion of Zelaya appears to be un-Constitutional. Article 81 and 102:

ARTICULO 81.- Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.

ARTICULO 102.- Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero

Article 42, Section 5:
La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República;


Citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic."

If he loses his citizenship, article 102 would not apply right?

[John T. Fishel]

it wouldn't until there was a trial and he was convicted of the crimes in Art 42 Sec 5. So, ex-Pres Zelaya is still a citizen; if he returns he will be arrested for the crimes listed there and a trial should ensue. If he stays away until a deal is reached or his term is over then there is not likely to be an arrest and trial.

My guess is that Zelaya was offered the choice of resinging the Presidency and gettin on a plane to Costa Rica or being dragged off to jail in handcuffs and PJs.

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

First we have Sr Zelaya's take from Bloomberg:

Zelaya Plotting Return, Seeks ‘Strong’ U.S. Actions (Update2)
By Andres R. Martinez and Matthew Walter

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said he’s plotting his return to the Central American nation and called for “strong” action from the U.S. to help restore him to power.

“Their words are strong,” Zelaya said today during an interview in the lobby of the Sheraton hotel in Panama. “We’re going to see now if their actions are strong.” ......

Then we have quite a different picture from McClatchy:

Posted on Thursday, July 2, 2009
U.S. taking cautious approach to Honduras political crisis
By Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — When the ousted president of Honduras hit Washington this week demanding a return to power, he got meetings with a White House adviser and a top U.S. diplomat.

To be sure, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already had condemned the coup d'etat that ejected President Manuel Zelaya from his Central American nation. However, the second-tier meetings signaled the new administration's cautious and nuanced management of its first full-blown crisis in Latin America.

Rather than taking the lead, the White House has chosen to defer to the Organization of American States, allowing it to steer an effort to orchestrate a restoration of "democratic order" in Honduras, a move that analysts say might enhance U.S. credibility in a region that's long viewed Washington's intervention with suspicion. ....

[AnalyticType]

From the McClatchy article:

"We have basically taken the Zelaya line, the (OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel) Insulza line, the Chavez line, and we haven't established anything that looks to my mind like an independent position," said Ray Walser, a veteran Foreign Service officer and senior policy analyst on Latin America at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center. "We've abandoned leadership in exchange for getting along."

Mr. Walser nailed it.

[slapout9]

Latest video from TRNN.


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...3+13%3A35%3A38

[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 ?

I suppose we should add Desmond Fitzgerald to gain some Gaelic color.

[AnalyticType]

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??

I should think that Garlic adds more aroma than color. Ah'm just sayin'...

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 ?

I suppose we should add Desmond Fitzgerald to gain some Gaelic color.

[tequila]

"We've abandoned leadership in exchange for getting along."

Does leadership = disagreeing with everyone else, i.e. the rest of the world? We are not only taking the "Chavez line, the Insulza line" --- we are also taking the "Uribe line", the "Calderon line", the "Harper line", the line of every single one of our Latin American allies, every single one of our European allies. Trying to pretend that opposition to the coup is restricted to Commie Chavez lovers or socialist dupes is silly. To believe that opposition to the coup = surrendering leadership of Latin America to Chavez is even sillier. As a matter of pure realpolitik, I cannot think of anything that would play into Chavez' hands more than legitimizing the coup against both the Inter-American Charter and the opinion of every single government, right or left wing, in the region.

[Ken White]

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[tequila]

Or is it 'does leadership equal simply doing what's right?' Regardless of what others do.

And what if people disagree about what the right thing to do is?

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. But again, the Heritage Foundation analyst didn't mention morality at all --- simply that by agreeing with everyone else, we were ceding our leadership position.

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.

I'm aware that alliances rarely involve love or even a lot of like on anyone's part. That's not what I mean by "ally." However, most of these countries are our diplomatic, economic, or military allies by treaty or preexisting agreements.

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.

I agree with you about the relative lack of a threat from Venezuela, no matter what Chavez would like to believe. Didn't mean to imply that you thought we were surrendering to him --- that appears to be the Heritage analyst's idea, and I was arguing against him. 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.

[Ken White]

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...

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...

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.

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.

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

[AnalyticType]

... 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.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

Ken, thank you for that link to the CS Monitor article!

Of particular import are the following elements:

After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

[...]

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution. [Emphasis via bolding by AT]

For years Constitutional Law scholars have argued whether the U.S. Constitution is "open to interpretation" or not. The Honduran Constitution does not appear to contain as many instances of interpretability (if that's a word?) Those seven articles the author mentioned are inviolate, absolute, and clear. It is what it is.

The Honduran Constitution apparently is very clear on the consequences of demonstrated intent to alter or remove any of those seven articles.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

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.

[...] 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.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to 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 (by article's author)], 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."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

While the literal removal of Zelaya from office was immediately performed per the Constitution, yes, his pyjamas could well have been exchanged for street clothes before they took him out of the palace. Yes, they did remove him literally from the country; many have argued that this was 'coup-like', and so it may appear. It must be remembered that they did not harm him, nor did they imprison him, nor did they kill him; they removed him. In that situation, in that country, the remaining branches of the government made good choices. They removed him, as required by their Constitution.

But again, to apply the standard "that's not how we would handle it" or "they had no right to exile Zelaya" smacks of mirror imaging - applying our values to a situation in someone else's country. That country has significantly different history, culture and political reality than the U.S. does.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

One hundred and twenty-five of the 128 members of Congress voted to take action to preserve their democracy. They and the Supreme Court acted on principle and, as mandated by their Constitution, the military followed through. The world's leaders don't like it for a multitude of reasons, from "I could be next" to "but he was democratically elected!" Those lines of reasoning do not negate the constitutional validity of the Honduran government's actions last week.

The final comment from the article's author says a great deal:

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

[tequila]

Interview with Honduras' top military lawyer.

The military officers who rushed deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya out of the country Sunday committed a crime but will be exonerated for saving the country from mob violence, the army's top lawyer said.

In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.

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.

edit:

Honduras to OAS - Adios!

Honduran troops shooting out tires on anti-coup protesters' buses.

Hermano Juancito links to this Catholic News article on the above protesters.

[John T. Fishel]

Read Article 239 of the Honduran constitution! It clearly states that any Honduran (President or otherwise) who takes steps toward changing any article of the Constitution that may note be amended is automatically removed from office and may not hold any public office for 10 years. Now, how this automatic removal is supposed to take place if the President disputes the facts is difficult to determine...

[tequila]

I don't think Article 239 covers the writing of a new constitution.

Now, how this automatic removal is supposed to take place if the President disputes the facts is difficult to determine.

I think the principle of due process would have to come into play here --- i.e. through a fair and impartial trial.

[AnalyticType]

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:

''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"?

[Ken White]

...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...

[Ken White]

...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.