Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
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"?