Supreme Court backed coup in Honduras.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Your two main criticisms of Zelaya seem to be that he's leftist and he was attempting a power grab through a non binding referendum that would influence or change no laws.

Which was the same route that Hugo Chaves took in removing term limits in Venezuela who Zelaya is allied with. Setting aside whether or not term limits are a necessity or not, it's quite disingenuous to claim that this shouldn't be interpreted as a power grab.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Which was the same route that Hugo Chaves took in removing term limits in Venezuela who Zelaya is allied with. Setting aside whether or not term limits are a necessity or not, it's quite disingenuous to claim that this shouldn't be interpreted as a power grab.

There's no way a non binding poll on the possibility of setting up a committee to consider changing the term limits could be seen as a power grab unless someone has an agenda. Some people are interpreting this as non binding poll=dictatorship! That's not the case. Kama is right that Zelaya provoked a constitutional crisis, but only one that would happen at some stage anyways. It is, as has already been pointed out, a constitution written by a military government.

Sand

It is, as has already been pointed out, a constitution written by a military government.

Ironically enough, when democratic government are faced with tough decisions they tend to sub contract them out to unelected, anti-democratic institutions to make the call for them.

What does that tell you about democracy and decision making?

Dont get me wrong - democracy is a fine tool to achieve good government. But that is all it is. A tool. It is not an absolute good. A decision reached by the putting a vote to the mob is not the best or correct decision simply because the mob decided upon it.

Back even 200 years ago, slavery would have been democratically supported. It was down to unpopular, anti-democratic measures that ignored and rode roughshod over the opinions of voters that forced through the repeal of slavery and established liberty over the democratic views of the majority of voters. Jingoism has swept across countries sweeping them into war again and again. The mob tends to be the worst decision makers.

There is a conflict on this thread between Redplanet and co who view the mob/democracy as being right though force of numbers. And there are others, including myself, who see that the mob can be wrong, ignorant and downright self defeatist. The emperors of Rome who overthrew the republic were swept to power on a wave of populism. The plebs under imperial rule lost more and more and more rights.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

Back even 200 years ago, slavery would have been democratically supported. It was down to unpopular, anti-democratic measures that ignored and rode roughshod over the opinions of voters that forced through the repeal of slavery and established liberty over the democratic views of the majority of voters. Jingoism has swept across countries sweeping them into war again and again. The mob tends to be the worst decision makers.

You need a new history book, slavery was first abolished in Britain thanks to a huge popular movement that was very of the opinion of the majority.

There is a conflict on this thread between Redplanet and co who view the mob/democracy as being right though force of numbers. And there are others, including myself, who see that the mob can be wrong, ignorant and downright self defeatist. The emperors of Rome who overthrew the republic were swept to power on a wave of populism. The plebs under imperial rule lost more and more and more rights.

I'm going to phrase this as clearly as I can; you believe Zelaya was initiating a power grab and therefore it was ok to depose him. However the usurpers actually did make a power grab, the thing you detest so much, and then took away personal liberties, among other things imprisoning over 800 people in the capital alone under new laws that allow them to be held without charge or trial (clearly a loss of liberties).
Now the question.

You believe Zelaya might have made a power grab, do you therefore believe that the rightest coup is an even worse, less liberal, more criminal regime and should be taken from power and imprisoned post haste? If not, why?

Kama

Sand wrote:

Dont get me wrong - democracy is a fine tool to achieve good government. But that is all it is. A tool.

Sure, democracy can make lousy decisions, I don't deny; people make lousy decisions all the time, democracies are swarms of people, sure.


But if democracy is demoted to being the means, what is the ends? How do we determine what 'good government' means, if not through a collective form of decision-making and expression? And if this isn't determined by some democratic form, then who is actually in control? It seems a slightly anti-political position; the real decisions are already-made, and not accessible to debate or change. Which looks like a pretty empty, hollow, formalistic 'democracy'.

Sand

But if democracy is demoted to being the means, what is the ends?

Liberty is the end.

You need a new history book, slavery was first abolished in Britain thanks to a huge popular movement that was very of the opinion of the majority.

Interesting fact...less than 2% of the British population back in 1830 even had a vote. And British abolitionists ( seeing as you choose to focus on that particular group) were in the main religious fanatics who viewed slavery as a mortal sin. This I am afraid was not people power. It was a tiny elite of barely, barely democratic group of aristocrats and capitalists where the case for ending of slavery was not argued on the basis of its popularity but its absolute morality. It did not matter how popular slavery was, nor how many people were offended ( and abolitionists faced attacks by mobs, especially in the port cities enriched by slavery), there was no question or need for a referendum (none was ever held). It was simply wrong and therefore not to be permitted.

you believe Zelaya was initiating a power grab and therefore it was ok to depose him.

Not entirely. The Honduras constitution says anyone attempting to remove the term limits, or anyone who supports such a move, even indirectly, is immediately removed from office. So under the terms of the Honduras constitution it is ok to remove him from office. And the Supreme Court had already determined that he should be removed. Again, I am not an expert on the Honduras constitution, but the Honduras Supreme Court probably is.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about his removal from office under Honduran law. The only illegal act was to expel him from the country. Realistically, the Honduran regime wished to remove the problem without restricting the mans personal liberties unduly so they expelled him rather than imprison him, or face populist mobs in the steets with the resulting bloodshed.

I dont see their solution as being the best one, but it certainly was not the worst either.

You believe Zelaya might have made a power grab, do you therefore believe that the rightest coup is an even worse, less liberal, more criminal regime and should be taken from power and imprisoned post haste? If not, why?

The "rightest" regime has already surrendered power to the correct inheritor of Zelaya's office under Honduran constitutional law, a member of Zelaya's own party. There is no need to take them from power, they have already surrendered it after their exceptional actions that they took in expelling Zelaya. I cited Cincinnatus for a reason you know...

Again, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever illegal about Zelaya's removal from office under Honduras law. The only illegal act was deporting him.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

There's no way a non binding poll on the possibility of setting up a committee to consider changing the term limits could be seen as a power grab unless someone has an agenda.

Look, we probably won't agree here so I'll just lay out why I think it is a power grab. It cannot be interpreted as anything but a play for more power for himself against the wishes of the legislature and the courts of his country. A constitutional change of the magnitude that he wanted should not be decided by only one branch of a three part system. The Senate and the Courts are there as much as to prevent abuses by the President as anything else. Consider the US, an American president has to work with the Senate. He cannot unilaterally impose measures without their consent (i.e. a Declaration of War and what have you).

If George Bush in the run up to the last election had called for a "non binding poll on the possibility of setting up a committee to consider changing the term limits" against the wishes of Congress and the US Supreme Court, could it possibly be viewed as not an attempt to make a power grab?

nesf

Kama wrote: »

But if democracy is demoted to being the means, what is the ends? How do we determine what 'good government' means, if not through a collective form of decision-making and expression? And if this isn't determined by some democratic form, then who is actually in control? It seems a slightly anti-political position; the real decisions are already-made, and not accessible to debate or change. Which looks like a pretty empty, hollow, formalistic 'democracy'.

Should 51% of the people be able to successfully vote for 50% of the wealth of the other 49% to be handed over to them? Or more broadly replace redistribution with their children being taken off them or something suitably horrific. Democracy without checks and balances is potentially as ugly a thing as the worst kinds of dictatorship.

Kama

Sand wrote:

Liberty is the end.

Whose? For what value of 'liberty'? I don't think this is a pre-agreed thing, which is why, in theory, democratic decision-making > the alternatives.

If we could determine the ends in advance, there'd be no need for any of this messy system. But we don't, or I haven't seen a good justification that we do.

I agree that it's a attempt to centralize power in the executive; the poll was to convene a Constituent Assembly, which could change that part of the Constitution; no need for any of the non-continuismo parts.

But simply, if he broke the law, arrest him, and try him. Due process And All That. Instead, the courts/Establishment responded to his provoking a constitutional crisis by military means. At which point, whether legal or not, its politically maladroit and deeply damaging to democratic institutions. Term limits are a possible danger, ousters a proximate one. Zelaya initiated the crisis, but the other side accelerated it.

Now, I don't see clean hands here; Zelaya was more than likely baiting for this, or something like it. He's flying populist colours, and was deposed by the Army while asking for a poll, by the 'elite' institutions of the country. Equally, the Army as a social faction aren't genetically friendly with Leftists in Honduras. So maybe the 'men-with-guns-depose-Prez' narrative reduces to good PR by Zelaya and little else? If so, it seems to be working, and the opposing institutions desperately need to hire some better PR firms.

On redistribution, I actually don't know, I've been convinced in either direction at different times. Governments have traditionally seen it as acceptable to limit property rights in various ways, including progressive taxation and other forms of redistribution; I don't consider this grotesquely coercive, more enlightened self-interest. Bismarcks founding of welfare states on the pragmatic grounds that its easier to buy people off than have them steal your house comes to mind. I guess I'm not 'fundamentalist' on personal property rights, context is everything; a demagogue can whip up discontent, or diplace it, do 'man of the people' stuff, especially if the pie is shrinking. But this works best if there are real grievances to exploit. If a society is relatively meritocratic and equitable, I think it unlikely that the 51%/49% split you allude to would come up; the less equitable the distribution, the more likely it is for the democratic arena to be used to contest property distribution.

nesf wrote:

children being taken off them or something suitably horrific

Well we do take children away, into care, if their parents are incapable or abusive. My problem is that I don't see any way in which we can decide what things are 'too horrific', other than coercive diktat, or the messy quasi-consensus of democratic forms. And if the first, who decides, and why? I accept that there are clear historical and theoretical problems against democracy, direct, majoritarian, whatever; I just fail to see a convincing justification for the 'elitist' view, other than 'we know better'.

The problem with 'we know better' though, is it pisses people off something savage...which dovetails nicely with the view that 'they' need to be managed to achieve a correct result. Kinda self-perpetuating. So for me, referenda are necessary a balance against all the power floating up; they can check the elitist tendencies.

RedPlanet

Looks like the media have backed off the claim that Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to end term limits.
Round up of today's news and there's no mention of that little redherring.
This is from the BBC:

It followed Mr Zelaya's attempts to hold a non-binding public consultation on 28 June to ask people whether they supported moves to change the constitution.

Opponents said that could have led to the removal of the current one-term limit on serving as president and so pave the way for his possible re-election.

So, ending term limits becomes... it could have lead to his possible re-election.

Kama

Mmm, I haven't found a satisfactory link that indicated he would change term limits, so it seems to be an argument of imputed intent. The counter is that there aren't many parts which can't be changed, and one of them is abrogating the Constitution, so calling for a new Constitution is itself unconstitutional. So not entirely a red herring, imo, but not a claim with solid evidence either.

But yeh, the poll could lead to a referendum which could lead to a Constituent Assembly which could draft a Constitution. Which is too many jumps for me to be persuaded that 'grab-in-the-night' tactics are justifiable.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing illegal about his removal from office under Honduran law. The only illegal act was to expel him from the country. Realistically, the Honduran regime wished to remove the problem without restricting the mans personal liberties unduly so they expelled him rather than imprison him, or face populist mobs in the steets with the resulting bloodshed.

I dont see their solution as being the best one, but it certainly was not the worst either.



The "rightest" regime has already surrendered power to the correct inheritor of Zelaya's office under Honduran constitutional law, a member of Zelaya's own party. There is no need to take them from power, they have already surrendered it after their exceptional actions that they took in expelling Zelaya. I cited Cincinnatus for a reason you know...

Again, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever illegal about Zelaya's removal from office under Honduras law. The only illegal act was deporting him.

Quite a bit was illegal about it, for instance the use of forged signatures and blocking members of parliament who were unsympathetic to the coup from attending the hearing.

nesf wrote: »

Look, we probably won't agree here so I'll just lay out why I think it is a power grab. It cannot be interpreted as anything but a play for more power for himself against the wishes of the legislature and the courts of his country. A constitutional change of the magnitude that he wanted should not be decided by only one branch of a three part system. The Senate and the Courts are there as much as to prevent abuses by the President as anything else. Consider the US, an American president has to work with the Senate. He cannot unilaterally impose measures without their consent (i.e. a Declaration of War and what have you).

If George Bush in the run up to the last election had called for a "non binding poll on the possibility of setting up a committee to consider changing the term limits" against the wishes of Congress and the US Supreme Court, could it possibly be viewed as not an attempt to make a power grab?

Ok we still disagree but thank you for explaining. Personally I feel that it is ok to make changes to the constitution by popular referendum, even if the supreme court or other government bodies disagree. Often these bodies represent vested interests and thus cannot be counted on to be impartial, especially in the face of changes that would hurt those interests; imo the most democratic method of changing the constitution is referendum.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

imo the most democratic method of changing the constitution is referendum.

I'd counter that it's also essential that multiple parts of Government are in favour of changing the constitution since essentially it's not just majority rule that we want. The rights of minorities need to be protected in democracies.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Well we do take children away, into care, if their parents are incapable or abusive. My problem is that I don't see any way in which we can decide what things are 'too horrific', other than coercive diktat, or the messy quasi-consensus of democratic forms. And if the first, who decides, and why? I accept that there are clear historical and theoretical problems against democracy, direct, majoritarian, whatever; I just fail to see a convincing justification for the 'elitist' view, other than 'we know better'.

The problem with 'we know better' though, is it pisses people off something savage...which dovetails nicely with the view that 'they' need to be managed to achieve a correct result. Kinda self-perpetuating. So for me, referenda are necessary a balance against all the power floating up; they can check the elitist tendencies.

You miss my point, we need some checks against majority rule in democracy to protect minorities. These checks can't, obviously, be decided upon by the majority. It's a chicken and egg problem, the majority can't really be asked to limit themselves effectively since it's utterly understandable that they would prefer to not be limited and to get their way on things. Ergo some non-referenda approach needs to be taken to decide on these limits but by definition these checks can't be "democratic" in the narrow sense of majority rule. Yet these checks are essential for a healthy and fair democracy that doesn't suffer from the excesses of majoritism.

Kama

Clearly there's more than one opinion on this. I'd agree that there are good systemic reasons for checks and balances, and there's a fair argument for the legitimacy of majoritarian decisions. I don't think either is a 'clear' trump of the other, its more of a messy mangle. Are the checks 'balanced', or does one 'minority', the oligarchy, have organizational capture of key institutions? If so, it can be 'formally' balanced, but to my mind non-functioning as a 'healthy and fair' democracy; perhaps we could say it does not protect against the 'excesses of minoritarianism', aka oligarchy, or at least this would be the arguments of Zelaya and the unions and social movements. I doubt its as simple as either that, or your anti-majoritarian argument, but those seem to be the polar positions.

Like said, the part which puts me plainly to one side is the use of the military, or their role as an actor, as in the succession process, and the extra-legality of it; no trial, no due process, forged documents, midnight grab etc. Follow that with media lockdowns, rescinding of constitutional rights, and the picture just isn't one I can feel comfortable supporting. My impression is that one hearing the word 'referendum' (albeit in an attenuated form), they went for the gun, which indicates a fear 'of the Mob', that less-valorized term for 'The People'.

Understandably, no country has yet recognized them as a legitimate government. Possibly, what they did was internally legal, but it still stinks.

Sand

Whose? For what value of 'liberty'? I don't think this is a pre-agreed thing, which is why, in theory, democratic decision-making > the alternatives.

The liberty of all citizens. The ultimate aim of any (good) government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens and to serve their interests. Dictatorships can be more liberal than democracies - look at the middle east. It is ruled by dictatorships but were you to remove all those dictators and hold free and fair elections tommorrow, extremist, fanatic, bigoted and wholly illiberal popular regimes would be returned.

Iraq is a prime example - democratic elections were held long before rule of law and liberal protections were enforced - the result was the playing of the sectarian cards and the descent into bitter power struggles because the Sunnis and the Kurds to a lesser extent feared the tyranny of the Shia majority. And with good reason too given the infiltration of the Iraqi state by militia deathsquads. Democracy is not always the solution - often it only empowers the worst manipulators of the mob. Liberty is always the solution.

Afghanistan also - the coalition forces deposed the Taliban, a democratic government was put in place and yet...an Afghani man was nearly put to death for converting to Christianity. How could this happen in a democratic society? Easily enough. But the important factor was that Afghanistan was not , and is not, a liberal society. There was little or no respect for freedom of religion. The widely held opinion by the majority of Afghanis was that the man deserved to be put to death and he was only rescued by vast international ( neo-imperialist bastards Redplanet might mutter...) pressure on the Afghani government which instead expelled him to other countries which would respect his liberties.

Democracy is not a good thing. It is simply a tool that reflects the opinions of the majority...a majority that can be racist, bigoted, intolerant, hateful and ultra nationalistic. Liberty is a good thing. The Romans established liberty as being the freedom ( of a citizen at least...) *from* things - not a freedom to do things, but a freedom *from* abuse or oppression of the majority.

Look, why do Fine Gael voters agree to accept the results of a Fianna Fail electoral victory? Why do they continue to pay their taxes to a FF government or obey the laws passed by FF TDs? Is it because they believe they will be well represented by a Fianna Fail government?

As Ned O'Keefe has made clear he does not represent his constituents, he only represents Fianna Failers. So the illusion that they will be represented by Fianna Fail cannot be the reason.

The reason that the losers in a democratic election tend to accept the results in a liberal democracy is not due to a respect for democracy. It is due to the reassurance provided by their liberties - their freedoms from the tyranny of the majority. ( Speaking of which, perhaps the best government Ireland has ever had was the first Fine Gael government up to 1932 - not only did they estabish the state under ferociously difficult circumstances, but they also peacefully handed over power to Fianna Fail - I do not believe that Fianna Fail would have done the same under those circumstances).

These liberties, the rule of law...they are not accidents of history in modern democracy. They were specifically guaranteed to ensure that the losers would accept the result of democratic elections. That they could be reassured that their enemies might be in the majority, but there was checks on their power and their own interests would be protected by those checks. That the state would not descend into civil war between the winners and losers of the last election.

Term limits ensure that any democratic, populist movement cannot be driven by a single personality. That it must be idealistic, with broad support that doesnt derive from support for one man.

Look at say Pakistan - you have a feudal democracy there. Votes are delivered to provincal chiefs as a form of service in return for favours and protection. Ireland is similar, especially outside Dublin. Both countries could seriously benefit from term limits on TDs.

Now in Honduras, Zelaya made a blatant powerplay to try and remove those term limits. He ignored the Supreme Courts rulings. He was put out of power, completely legally. He was expelled illegally, but seeing as he refuses to accept he was removed from office that is a realistic necessity.

There is a popular phrase that evil triumphs because good is dumb. That to be tolerant, you must tolerate the intolerant. To be liberal, you must defend the illiberal. To be democratic, you must respect the mandate of the anti-democratic. What is missed here, is that tolerance, liberty, democracy...these are broad agreements underwhich a society agrees to co-exist without murdering each other. If a group or entity refuses to be bound by those constraints, then they should be put out of that society.

Zelaya ignored the rules under which Honduras is governed, the rules under which the people of Honduras accepted that he should govern them. If he ignored the rule of law, how can the rule of law bind him? Instead his enemies took extraordinary actions and removed him before returning to the rules under which the people of Honduras have accepted that they will be governed. Zelaya is no longer part of the equation because he refused to respect the rule of law or the liberties of the citizens.

Executive Steve

brianthebard wrote: »

There's no way a non binding poll on the possibility of setting up a committee to consider changing the term limits could be seen as a power grab unless someone has an agenda. Some people are interpreting this as non binding poll=dictatorship! That's not the case. Kama is right that Zelaya provoked a constitutional crisis, but only one that would happen at some stage anyways. It is, as has already been pointed out, a constitution written by a military government.

Especially given that his term is due to expire in early 2010 - the sheer amount of work involved in drafting a constitution from scratch (assuming the mooted polls were favourable enough to allow an ACTUAL referendum on whether the drafting thereof would even find favour with the electorate), the chap would have been long gone by the time ANY of this would have been enacted.

Kama

I see your argument, Sand, I just happen to not to agree with it; liberal dictatorial regimes/liberal autocracies are alright, so long as they do things we agree with, democratic results we don't agree with aren't alright, and majoritarian democracy is an illiberal democracy, because their results are things we disagree with. This isn't hypocritical, because as you said, democracy is the means, to an ends that has been already determined, your 'liberty'. You privilege the liberal adjective, others privilege democratic. I don't think maximizing any one variable is a smart thing to do in a system, I'd rather some form of balanced optimum. If 'Liberty is always the answer', at some point that selfsame liberty will become a problem, the cure turned toxic.

If a group or entity refuses to be bound by those constraints, then they should be put out of that society.

Serious question: should people be permitted to establish states which do not accord to the liberal model?

The impression I get is 'No, for their own good'. It doesn't cut it for me. I like the Spaceballs quote from Dark Helmet, but the transition to the necessity of tolerant liberals to expel any who disagree with their core presumptions from the territory condenses the argument; much like 'free speech (except for Nazis, and anyone else I happen to disagree with...)', 'tolerance for all! (except those who aren't tolerant), or here 'Democracy and the Rule of Law for Honduras (as long as that democracy is channeled correctly, as long as it is not the 'bad' populist democracy, and as long as we can maintain that attempts to change the law are treason)

It's a contradictory reflex. Tolerance for what you basically agree with already, is no tolerance at all. Plus, if you're so self-certain of your tolerance, you can feel fully justified in being really intolerant to those 'intolerant minorities'.

Again, just my impression here, but by the quotes from the Honduran military, or the line-up on this board, or by watching twitters, this seems to be far more to do with another part of Latin America falling in domino theory than it is to do with the manner or constitutionality of the succession/coup; Chavismo rather than continuismo seems to be the problem...

Sand

I see your argument, Sand, I just happen to not to agree with it

It is a good thing we live in a liberal democracy I guess, and dont have to depend on our right to disagree being favourable to a majority.

liberal dictatorial regimes/liberal autocracies are alright, so long as they do things we agree with, democratic results we don't agree with aren't alright, and majoritarian democracy is an illiberal democracy, because their results are things we disagree with.

Ironically, the "so long as they do things we agree with" is the freedom offered by democracy. The "regardless of if we agree" is the freedom offered by liberty/rule of law.

Democracy can arrive at good solutions. Democracy can arrive at bad solutions. It is just a tool to sample and record the opinion of all voters. It has no moral value. It is just a tool. It keeps governments accountable to the people. It keeps governments aware that they must serve the interests of the people. But it is just a tool.

Democracy can often return the most vile, evil and disgusting decisions. Liberalism ( in the classical sense) almost never does.

Serious question: should people be permitted to establish states which do not accord to the liberal model?

The impression I get is 'No, for their own good'. It doesn't cut it for me.

I believe such a state would be idyllic and perfect for the majority. However without liberty, no minority (religious, ethnic, political) would enjoy living there. So you would end up with mono-cultural states, probably after some civil war or communal violence. Such societies cannot support the sort of broad, cosmopolitan societies evident in the west today. Again, liberal democracies did not guarantee liberties through some sort of accident of history. They are there for deliberate and vital reasons.

But if some white supremacists (for example) want to form their own state and live in their idyllic illiberal society where minorities must depend on the good will of the majority for protection then I guess thats up to them. I will stick to imperfect liberal democracy however, and pity the poor minorities living with the white supremacist majority...

There is a thread in the political theory section where various anarcho-socialists dream about a pure democracy state where everything is decided by the will of the people through votes and all property is pooled. When tackled on conflict between individuals and the majority, the solution is that anyone who disagrees with the majority is free to **** off out of this perfect free...society. Until of course the majority vote that they are not free to do so because they have some skill required by the community...

Sand

I like the Spaceballs quote from Dark Helmet, but the transition to the necessity of tolerant liberals to expel any who disagree with their core presumptions from the territory condenses the argument; much like 'free speech (except for Nazis, and anyone else I happen to disagree with...)', 'tolerance for all! (except those who aren't tolerant), or here 'Democracy and the Rule of Law for Honduras (as long as that democracy is channeled correctly, as long as it is not the 'bad' populist democracy, and as long as we can maintain that attempts to change the law are treason)

Why should I respect the free speech of those who will not respect my free speech?

Why should I tolerate people who will not tolerate me?

Why should liberal democrats agree to be governed by those who will not respect the institutions of liberal democracy?

The "state" is an artificial construction. It is not a natural condition. People agreeing to live together, to group resources and decision making, to abide by laws they might not actually agree with, to tolerate behaviour they would never support, to allow people to say things they completely disagree with...

This isnt natural.

The liberal democratic state is a carefully agreed compact between all citizens that they will be governed in a certain way, that their rights and liberties will be protected, and there will be certain procedures and methods followed.

If someone disturds that compact, refuses to abide by it then all bets are off. If Zelaya refuses to listen to the Supreme Court, then he is dismissing the rule of law so he puts himself outside the law. If an intolerant group arise in a liberal democracy, then they should not be tolerated.

brianthebard

If anyone is interested there's a very excellent blog which is charting the coup and translating articles etc into English. Here are two very important updates in which the constitutionality of the non-binding poll is discussed and the latest crackdowns by the usurpers against their enemies;

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/as-we-watch-and-wait-revisiting.html

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/when-coup-becomes-purge-and-books-are.html


The evidence is mounting that a serious attack on personal and political liberties has been enforced since the coup, and that any validity the coup may have had is steadily being eroded. It is becoming more and more obvious that the coup had nothing to do with the poll but was itself a power grab.