Supreme Court backed coup in Honduras.

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Nodin

Oul Hugo forgot that its the movement that should be important, not the man...

Anyhoo....

nesf

If the army turn back over power immediately to the former President's party, then fair play to them for safeguarding their constitution.

Nehaxak

There is way too much American influence in Honduras, both in business and politics. It stifles (at least it did when I worked there and on Roatan for a short time in 1999/2000) local ability to progress themselves and their own business and self worth.

In all my short time in Honduras, there was not a cop to be seen on the streets anywhere, justice was dealt with via the gun (everyone seemed to have them) and policing was done via the military - when and if you ever saw them. Wonderful country though and lovely people, very warm, welcoming, hard working and humble people - that and you could buy a big bag of weed for 5 dollars, so all was good :cool:

I think Chavez is right in what he's said and what he hopefully will follow-up with doing to help return Zelaya to power.

mike65

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

Sand

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

As I understand it thats the basic gist of it.

God help anyone who infringes on the rights of a latin american socialist however.

MikeC101

Nehaxak wrote: »

There is way too much American influence in Honduras, both in business and politics. It stifles (at least it did when I worked there and on Roatan for a short time in 1999/2000) local ability to progress themselves and their own business and self worth.

In all my short time in Honduras, there was not a cop to be seen on the streets anywhere, justice was dealt with via the gun (everyone seemed to have them) and policing was done via the military - when and if you ever saw them. Wonderful country though and lovely people, very warm, welcoming, hard working and humble people - that and you could buy a big bag of weed for 5 dollars, so all was good :cool:

I think Chavez is right in what he's said and what he hopefully will follow-up with doing to help return Zelaya to power.

So, American influence = bad, but actual military intervention by Venezuela = ok?

peasant

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Not to steal your thunder, but what the article actually says is this:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire", and threatened military action should the Venezuelan ambassador to Honduras be attacked

(highlights by me)

Not very diplomatic and full of bluster, as per usual Chavez ...but he isn't exactly the first head of state to threaten military action if his countries' ambassador should be attacked ...heck, the US have attacked (with rockets and not just words ) other countries for far less.

mike65

Ah fair enough, he'd start a war over a civil servant, well that is socialist!

brianthebard

Thought it would be good to bump this now that there's new information out and the legitimate president plans to return to Honduras. It seems now that the coup occurred first and then the anti-Zelaya congress members rubber stamped it. Since then protests have been violently surpressed and snipers have been stationed at the airport Zelaya intends to fly into.
http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-snipers-are-in-place-around.html

jank

Sand wrote: »

As I understand it thats the basic gist of it.

God help anyone who infringes on the rights of a latin american socialist however.

In fairness Sand we all know the history of democratically elected socialists being put to bed by the pro-business CIA/American sponsored opposition. I suppose you those infringements are OK too?

I don't know much about this current situation as there is always misinformation on both sides to find out the real story.
Zelaya seems to have the UN and the international community behind him though which makes me wonder the real reason and intent for this "coup".

jank

Also Mike, thought you were better than that to totally misrepresent facts as simple as in the BBC report.

RedPlanet

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Actually members of the congress and the Supreme Court rubber-stamped the coup after it took place. Zelaya was not removed from power via any democratic means.
Incidently (unimportantly?):

the referendum Zelaya was pushing--which prompted the coup--asked citizens only if there should be a vote on "whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political Constitution." In other words, Hondurans weren't being asked to vote on term limits or even on revising the Constitution. They were simply being asked to vote on whether or not to have a vote on revising the Constitution, with the terms of that revision being left to an elected assembly.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/grandin
But hey, don't let facts get in your way.
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) have a go at media coverage of the coup on their weekly radio show http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3835

Coverage of the Honduran coup ousting president Manuel Zelaya has often included the claim that the coup was prompted by Zelaya’s move to change the constitution, removing term limits so he could stay in power. The false claim is central to the anti-Zelaya propaganda that has gone with little challenge in U.S. media.

gurramok

All i see is a man that is democratically elected as leader of his country been ousted by the unelected army.
Now call me wrong, but i see what has happened as wrong and he should be returned to serve out his full term and face the electorate when his term is up?

Sand

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

They also forged his signature and barred anti coup members of the congress from a hearing on exiling him. Since then they've ordered the army to fire on a crowd of 200,000 at an airport, killing at least three. I know you're anti-Left, but you surely can't feel the usurpers are in the right here?

jank

What if you make up the Law on the way?

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

The coup members claim he broke the law and ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court. Nobody is above the law?

And so it follows that bursting into his residence using military soldiers dressed in balaclavas and flying him out of the country is the way law-breakers are treated?

Lately the coup leaders have prevented the presidents return by blocking an airport runway with military vehicles. The president was accompanied on the airplane by the president of the UN general assembly Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann.

Is blocking a runway with military vehicles the democratic way?
Surely if the coup leaders were sincere in their threat to arrest the President Zelaya they would have just let the plane land and proceeded to arrest him. Afterall i'm sure the president has rights under the contitution, for example a right to a trial?

The coup's faltering public relations drive took another blow when the army's top lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, admitted to reporters that the overthrow was illegal. It was nevertheless necessary, he said, to stop Honduras becoming a socialist ally of Venezuela.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/06/honduras-blocks-president-return

Sand

If his administration ignores the law and attempts to play the populist card to subvert checks on his power, then he encourages his opponents to also ignore the law and use whatever means are available to them to achieve their own aims.

Its why the "I have more votes therefore I can do whatever I want!" viewpoint of political legitimacy (that seems to prevail in Latin America Socilalism in particular) tends to result in violent opposition. It is all or nothing politics. You cant afford to lose in all or nothing politics.

The president was accompanied on the airplane by the president of the UN general assembly Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann.

What role does the UN have here?

I know you're anti-Left, but you surely can't feel the usurpers are in the right here?

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

RedPlanet

So basically Sand, you're defending a military coup over a democratically elected presdient, because he's leftist?
:rolleyes:

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty. They kinda equate to the same thing, but presentation is everything.

Of course you are. Well then please clarify for me, which position is the most pro-liberty in this case, the democratically elected president, or the illegal, forgery using, military coup? The side who wishes to create reform in Honduras to benefit the poor, or the side which had the military open fire on a crowd of 200,000, killing a 16 year old boy amongst others? The side who wished to hold a referendum, or the side who created a coup because they disliked the possibilities the referendum would create? Whenever you're ready.

sovtek

mike65 wrote: »

So constutuional law counts for nothing if it hinders a socialist?

Royrsh...ya know...overthrowing the democratically elected leader and installing a leader with military force is...like...SO consitutional.

brianthebard

sovtek wrote: »

Because...ya know...overthrowing the democratically elected leader and installing a leader with military force is...like...SO consitutional.

Ironically the referendum Zelaya was pushing for was to close this constitutional loophole. Honduras man, crazy country. :pac:

sovtek

Sand wrote: »

I am not anti-Left. I am pro-Liberty.

"you are free to do what we tell you".

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

Shocking stuff in the arm pit of the Americas, The president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya presumed to ride roughshod over the law of the land and got smacked across the mouth for his trouble as the Suprme Court ordered his dismissal, and he is now in Costa Rica and guess who is threatening to intervene with his army?

Obama?

No don't be silly. Hugo Chávez of course, a man not unfamilair with attempting to change a constitution to suit his personal needs. Sending a gunboat sort of goes against all he supposedly stands for.

Sand wrote: »

If his administration ignores the law and attempts to play the populist card to subvert checks on his power, then he encourages his opponents to also ignore the law and use whatever means are available to them to achieve their own aims.

Its why the "I have more votes therefore I can do whatever I want!" viewpoint of political legitimacy (that seems to prevail in Latin America Socilalism in particular) tends to result in violent opposition. It is all or nothing politics. You cant afford to lose in all or nothing politics.

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8127772.stm

Echoing the condemnation by Latin American leaders, President Obama also said that "it would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections".

"The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past," he added.

And while Washington has - oddly - found itself on the same side as Mr Chavez in condemning the removal of Mr Zelaya and calling for his return to power, it has also had to reject allegations by Mr Chavez that it had a hand in the coup

Mr Zelaya has garnered impressive international support, including a unanimous condemnation of the coup at the UN, but Honduras's new leaders, while isolated, have vowed to arrest Mr Zelaya if he tries to return.

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8127772.stm

In fairness Obama did a bit of backtracking there from the first days of the coup. I have yet to hear a US official go on record calling it a coup and I have yet to hear anyone of them call for Zedaya to be restored to power. Obama has yet to cut off aid to the country either.

RedPlanet

Exactly.
This is a real test for Obama, and it presents a great opporuntity for him.
Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?
Or, screw the people and side with imperialism?

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote: »

Exactly.
This is a real test for Obama, and it presents a great opporuntity for him.
Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?
Or, screw the people and side with imperialism?

Unfortunately I think he's backtracked because most of the international institutions have condemned the coup. At first he seemed quite comfortable with imperialism as you say and it's not unrealistic to think that he could have stopped the coup had he wanted to.
I'm not too enthusiastic about Obama because he's shown he doesn't care all that much about democracy and rule of law when it comes to certain places...like Afghanistan/Pakistan or Israel/Palestine. He's pretty much been Bush Lite all the way around...just smarter and more articulate and maybe a little less trigger happy.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

Unfortunately I think he's backtracked because most of the international institutions have condemned the coup. At first he seemed quite comfortable with imperialism as you say and it's not unrealistic to think that he could have stopped the coup had he wanted to.

I don't think you can argue that he could have stopped the coup. It was a quick and swift action supported by most of the major institutions in the country. At best what he can now do is apply pressure to have the president reinstated.

One of the biggest problems here is that the Honduras Senate cannot impeach or remove a president who they feel is overstepping their authority and this is essentially what the problem is here. The president wanted to ram an unconstitutional referendum through against the wishes of the courts and the Senate and they were powerless to stop him, ergo why the coup happened. If there was a better check against presidential power in Honduras that was available to the Senate then this might not ever have happened.

I stand by my original post though, the army was very restrained here and passed over power immediately to the Senate with the next series of elections not postponed or affected. A few decades ago in that part of the world it would have been more likely that they'd install a puppet of theirs and ignore the people's representatives. As much as I disagree with the idea of a coup being used to oust a president at least this wasn't a return to military juntas.

Sand

So basically Sand, you're defending a military coup over a democratically elected presdient, because he's leftist?

I dont recall defending it. I never said it was the best thing since sliced bread. I just note that when you make populist power plays, when the administration of any country decides they can ignore the laws and the Supreme Court...well, then your enemies might also note that they can take exceptional actions.

Shocking views here.

If the entire world including the most capitalist country of them all the USA calls for the Honduran president to return to power, then these views posted here are extremist

Now thats a shocking view. The popularity or unpopularity of a view doesnt make it right or wrong. Plenty of dubious and disproven theories, views and opinions were widely held throughout history.

Does his administration side with democracy and the rule of law?

They dont seem to be on the same side in Honduras. The democratically elected President was removed because he ignored the rule of law, wasnt he?

Of course you are. Well then please clarify for me, which position is the most pro-liberty in this case, the democratically elected president, or the illegal, forgery using, military coup? The side who wishes to create reform in Honduras to benefit the poor, or the side which had the military open fire on a crowd of 200,000, killing a 16 year old boy amongst others? The side who wished to hold a referendum, or the side who created a coup because they disliked the possibilities the referendum would create? Whenever you're ready.

You are confusing liberty with democracy. They are two, often opposed, forces in modern politics. It may seem odd, but the army removing a populist but democratically elected President may be of benefit for liberty in that country if that President was illiberal and hostile to checks on his power like the Supreme Court.

The referendum was part of an aim to remove term limits and to allow this guy to run again and again indefinitly.

Term limits are there for a reason - to prevent cults of personality, to prevent any one man becoming too powerful or too central in the administration of the state. They preserve liberty, but are anti-democratic in that they prevent people from voting for a candidate they might wish to re-elect.

Generally speaking, removing term limits is a really, really, really, really bad idea no matter how popular the person in question might be, as term limits help to ensure power is not concentrated in any one persons hands. Given the attempts by Zelaya to remove these term limits, the institutions in Honduras may have feared the worst (a move to a Chavista style state where the state serves a charismatic regime) and took steps to defend the constitution and the state.

Zelaya doesnt appear to have been the patron saint of constitutional probity anyhow. Im not an expert on his regime but apart from the alliance with Chavez and Castro ( neither liberal democrats...) hes been accused of all sorts of shenanigans:

In April he announced plans to begin wiretapping of all cellphones in Honduras?

He cut funding to the agencies that oversee the elections in Honduras?

Apparently forcing the countrys TV and Radio stations to carry many 2 hour long political broadcasts favourable to his government. This was to try counter what he considered a hostile media - and apparently the media are hostile to him.

Linked to that perhaps, the UN has criticised the amount of attacks on journalists in Honduras - murders/death threats and so on.

The OAS accused him in 2008 of imposing a subtle censorship on the country.

Also the referendum itself - he already has the power to invoke constitutional change on 98% of the countries constitution. The only parts he cant touch are term limits, presidential succession and so on. Its a power grab. Pure and simple.

The Supreme Court declared his referendum illegal. The Congress of Honduras declared his referendum illegal. The attorney general declared his referendum illegal. The top electoral body in Honduras declared his referendum illegal. The Army chief refused to help him force the referendum through over their objections. When he was sacked, the Supreme Court declared that illegal too. Even his replacement ( a member of his own party) described his removal as a democratic act. The guy didnt win over too many of the other institutions of government in Honduras by the looks of things.

Like I said, Im not an expert on the guy - he might be the second coming of Jesus Christ - but it looks to me like he set the standard of play in Honduras and his enemies decided enough was enough.

Oh, and while you rally around him and declare him a wronged lefty you might be interested to know that apparently, back in 1975 a lot of students, priests and social activists were found dead at the bottom of a well on his fathers ranch, shot by his fathers gun. Must make for interesting political discussions at family reunions, though he cant have been too distant from his father either as he received his business interests from his father.

brianthebard

So just to clarify, a military coup which takes the lives of children is improving the liberty of the people of Honduras? How exactly? And btw, even without term limits the guy still has to get elected. A power grab does not usually include a referendum, that's kind of the opposite of a power grab, that's uh, allowing the people of a country the liberty of being a part of their government?