Chavez wannabe legally ousted, media calls it a coup.

[Trollbait]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue and let history sort out the truth.

Forcing a country to reinstate a leader they do not want has not worked well in the past.

[Lurker]

Agree to disagree?

On the one side we have nearly every government on the planet looking at a rather complex legal issue and concluding it was probably illegal, although final conclusions haven't been announced. On the other side, we have people on the internet pointing to an Article from the Honduran constitution and saying that's why it was legal, when not only doesn't the Article apply, it wasn't even mentioned by any legal institution in Honduras as a reason.

I understand why defenders of the coup point to Article 239. Without the instant removal from office provision the actions by the Honduran courts, congress and military go from being constitutional to being an orchestrated coup outside the bounds of their constitution. The problem is you are confusing theoretical discussions on the internet with what actually occured in Honduras.

If you can find any official statement or ruling by the Honduran Congress or Courts that show Zelaya was removed from office under Article 239, please produce it. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1533031

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html

http://www.redroom.com/blog/kidtwo/its- ... itch-black

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/28/w ... ts-ouster/

http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639

http://hondurasnews.com/2009/07/02/what ... stitution/

[Partha]

What I love is that half of Fal's links appear to point to the same article Jecks linked, which makes it another blastfax from the Wurlitzer.

[Lurker]

Did Fallakin really link to a Hannity.com message board post by BillyBobUSA as proof that the Article 239 nonsense isn't internet fueled bullshit?

Like Partha said, multiple links to the same op-ed. Contained links to actual news reports had no indication Zeyala was removed under Article 239. It wasn't a reason given for ruling the planned vote illegal and it wasn't a reason given for removing him from office.

If I didn't know better I'd say Fallakin was trying to help bolster my case with those links.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Google ftw for Lurker's case.

[Lurker]

I know it's all over the Internets, Fallakin. But it wasn't the reason given by the Honduran legislature or courts. My point isn't that complicated.

[Lurker]

Top Honduran military lawyer: We broke the law

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.

It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

''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.''

Zelaya was ousted in a predawn raid at his house Sunday after he vowed to defy a court order that ruled a nonbinding referendum to be held that day illegal. The leftist wealthy rancher had clashed with the attorney general, the Supreme Court, Congress and the military he commanded.

But instead of being taken to court to stand trial for abuse of power and treason, the military swept him out of bed at gunpoint and forced him into exile.

After giving reasons for the lawless action the article goes on to say...

This week, Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho told reporters that he launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of taken to court. Article 24 of Honduras' penal code will exonerate the joint chiefs of staff who made the decision, because it allows for making tough decisions based on the good of the state, Inestroza said.

U.S. State Department lawyers are studying whether the action is legally considered a military coup, even though the person who was constitutionally next in line took power.

So the Deputy Attorney General of Honduras said that the joint chiefs of staff, the military in other words, made the decision to forcibly remove Zelaya. That action was not ordered by the courts or the congress as some have claimed.

The U.S. State Department is still studying the matter, but as of this morning they said they think it was a coup. Not a military coup since it involved other players and the military didn't retain power, but a coup nonetheless.

[Ddrak]

Oh noes, the Honduran military is saying exactly the same legal interpretation I am. They broke the law but did it for a better outcome than following the law. I think they did the morally correct thing, if not the legally correct one.

Dd

[Lurker]

Since we're tooting our own horns, my first post on the thread is holding up pretty well too.

[Trollbait]

Oh noes, the Honduran military is saying exactly the same legal interpretation I am. They broke the law but did it for a better outcome than following the law. I think they did the morally correct thing, if not the legally correct one.

That is quite possible. So what do they do now?

[Partha]

Put him back in. That's the law.

[Ddrak]

Nah - they've properly impeached him now so it's fine to leave him out. I think they're causing long term problems for themselves by not letting him return though. I also think the current President is doing a pretty awful job at restoring trust to the system - he really seems to have an issue with the difference between truth and lies.

Dd

[Lurker]

I don't see how they can allow him to return at this point. The current government is just going to have to deal with being viewed as illegitimate until new elections are held in November. They also have a lot of work to do strengthening their political infrastructure so that this sort of military backed coup over relatively minor issues can't happen again.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Relatively minor?

You call launching a nationwide vote to amend the constitution minor?!

C'mon....

[Partha]

It wasn't a vote to amend the constitution, it was a vote to decide if they wanted to amend the constitution.

Elections will be interesting, because Zelaya has large support among the poor. I predict a vote of Iranian substance.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Semantics...

[Partha]

If you want to claim 'semantics', tell us what part of the Constitution would have been changed after the referendum. I'll wait right here.

[Select]

It wasn't a vote to amend the constitution, it was a vote to decide if they wanted to amend the constitution.

This.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

The election would have authorized constitutional reforms, and could have given Zelaya the right to extend his presidency (his four year term was to end in January 2010).

As I said, semantics.