Chavez wannabe legally ousted, media calls it a coup.

[Harlowe]

Yeah, Jecks... we're all regional and Honduran constitutional experts now.

[Ddrak]

The article 272 also says that one of the Army’s main duties is to protect the Constitution; therefore, if the president gives an order that goes against the Constitution (and he does that in clear defiance of the other powers of the Republic), then the Army has a constitutional duty to stop the president.

That's absolutely wrong in any context. The US armed forces notionally have the same duty but to say they should intervene in a constitutional infringement is completely ridiculous. Sullivan is looking for an excuse to justify the intervention, which by most commentator's review was completely over the top.

Dd

[Partha]

While we're at it, the folks talking about sections of the Honduran constitution can reread Article I, section 3. I'll wait here.

[Trollbait]

Yeah, Jecks... we're all regional and Honduran constitutional experts now.

I am not an expert. All I did is read the portions pertaining to Zelaya's violations of office. Did you? I would suggest that you do.

That's absolutely wrong in any context. The US armed forces notionally have the same duty but to say they should intervene in a constitutional infringement is completely ridiculous.

Wrong how? By your moral standard or by Honduran law?

Whether their reaction is over the top is surely a matter of opinion and has no bearing on the legality of their actions.

Looking at it from an American or Aussie perspective is different than the Honduran one I might hazard. Hondurans have a long history of oppression by tin horn dictators of various stripes. Noting the history of the region I think as a matter of opinion a bit of leeway could be granted as long as their laws are followed (Which they have been).

[Trollbait]

While we're at it, the folks talking about sections of the Honduran constitution can reread Article I, section 3. I'll wait here.

Partha~ Nice try but the text of that Article would only apply if the force of arms was not in good Constitutional order, which i am asserting that it is.

Look, this is all very simple. If the current Honduran government followed the law of their own country then they are within their rights and everything is legal.

We may not like the way their system is structured and pressure can be applied for them to change it but to alienate the government and people of Honduras because the Chavistas are angry about losing an ally is stupid and a waste of the billions of dollars in goodwill dollars we have spent with our military engineers building roads and schools and clinics in the remote regions of that country.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

[Ddrak]

Wrong how? By your moral standard or by Honduran law?

Both. A constitutional clause stating the military's function is to uphold the constitution has nothing to do with the legality of the military arresting the President. If you're going to run around claiming that a military being sworn to uphold the constitution gives them carte blanche to rectify constitutional grievances then you're just flat out wrong.

Whether their reaction is over the top is surely a matter of opinion and has no bearing on the legality of their actions.

Not really.

Explain to me how shutting down the media is part of this "legal framework" you're inventing?

Explain to me how the forceful removal a President from office is the logical conclusion to an unconstitutional request, rather than simply denying the request?

Explain to me under what constitutional power the other two branches of government decided they could direct the military to *remove* the President before his term was completed and simply appoint a new one? The powers of the Legislature are strictly enumerated in Article 205. The powers of the court are enumerated in 319. The military is always placed under direct control of the Executive, so suggesting the other branches can give them legal orders is blatantly ridiculous.

Noting the history of the region I think as a matter of opinion a bit of leeway could be granted as long as their laws are followed (Which they have been).

You keep asserting that the law has been followed, but I'm just not seeing any real defense of it. There's nothing in the constitution permitting early removal from office short of formal impeachment (same as the US), nothing that gives any branch but the executive the power to order the military and certainly nothing about the ability to shut down the media in the process. Your assertions of legality are plain bullshit.

Now, I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve to be tossed out, but they simply didn't follow the rule of law to do it and to suggest otherwise is really just inventing crap to justify an illegal action. Alberto Gonzales would be proud.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Explain to me how the forceful removal a President from office is the logical conclusion to an unconstitutional request, rather than simply denying the request?

Dd

Their SC did deny the request, the President assembled a mob and was going to carry out the vote anyway. Read my link from wsj, its all in there.

[Ddrak]

Their SC did deny the request, the President assembled a mob and was going to carry out the vote anyway. Read my link from wsj, its all in there.

I read it. So the President carries out a vote that means nothing. So what? Sounds like perfect grounds for impeachment and a calm and orderly transition to a new President, but they fucked it up. Where does the President deciding to conduct a vote that is blatantly non-binding give the Supreme Court the ability to contravene the constitution in ordering the military to arrest the President without following due process?

It's like saying that because GWB ordered illegal wiretaps, the USSC should send in the Marines to the White House to cart him off to Cuba. Uh, no.

See - the problem all these wingnut opinion pieces have is they are taking the result (which is a good one) and using it to justify the process. Law (thankfully) doesn't work like that.

Dd

[Trollbait]

A constitutional clause stating the military's function is to uphold the constitution has nothing to do with the legality of the military arresting the President.

Perhaps you missed the Honduran constitutional clause stating that the military is empowered to maintain good order along with the National Police. They are allowed to serve in a police role.

Explain to me under what constitutional power the other two branches of government decided they could direct the military to *remove* the President before his term was completed and simply appoint a new one?

I think perhaps you are missing exactly what prompted his removal. Allow me to lay out a timeline for you.

Manuel Zelaya proposes a non-binding referendum to change the Constitution of Honduras.

This action is ruled illegal by the country's Supreme Court, Attorney General, Legislature, and human-rights ombudsman.

Zelaya then gave the military an illegal order and directed them to distribute the ballots in their constitutional role in elections in direct conflict with the rest of the government.

The Commander in Chief of the Military (Who is NOT the President by the way) refused the illegal order.

Zelaya fired the Commander in Chief of the Military, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez.

The Supreme Court and the Legislature declared this action to also be illegal and reinstated Romeo Vásquez Velásquez.

In accordance with a direct order from both the Legislature and the Supreme court, with the legal backing of the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman the military removed Zelaya from the Presidential Residence and recieved his alleged resignation, which he now denies he gave. (The military was given this order as opposed to the National Police because unlike the National Police they are not under the DIRECT control of the Executive.)

The congress voted to accept his resignation and then voted to impeach and remove him after he denied resigning.

The new President was placed in office under the constitutional guidelines laid out and there is a civilian government that remains in control in Honduras.

The local media being "suppressed" is typical in a national emergency. The media in the United States is subject to the same controls if the need would arise and indeed were suppressed during World War 2 and World War 1 to an extent.

I like John Triolo's take on the topic:

http://www.examiner.com/x-12244-Worcest ... y-Comments

This doesn't seem to have been a run-of-the-mill Latin American coup.

Anyone who has been following, with even slight interest, the situation in Honduras in recent weeks can easily see that Zelaya was in the midst of an attempt to make himself a tyrant. The question is not whether Zalaya, who is a domestic enemy of the constitutional order of his own country--that is, a traitor, ought to be President. It is pretty evident that he ought not to be in government at all. The real question, at least for those of us concerned with important issues of law, right, legitimacy and sources of authority is whether Honduran constitutional theory, combined with the letter of the law, can be interpreted in such a way as to allow for the deposition, by the military, of a legitimately elected executive who is himself acting contrary to law and custom. I simply don't know enough about the constitutional order of Honduras to say whether the military's actions were legitimate. I will say Zelaya got what he was asking for, legal or not.

I am very disappointed in the President's intemperate response on this issue. I suppose his relatively sensible response to somewhat similar events in Iran got my hopes up. I agree that it is in the United States' best interests to support legitimate government and rule of law in Latin America. However, what constitutes legitimacy and what the law actually is in this case is too murky to justify the rash condemnation of the so-called coup issued by the White House. It seems likely that this is merely an example of a country regulating its own internal affairs through the somewhat irregular means of military intervention to support, rather than subvert, the rule of law. It is a very tricky and complicated legal question. One of which Obama would do well to stay clear.

[Lurker]

I like part of John Triolo's take too!

I simply don't know enough about the constitutional order of Honduras to say whether the military's actions were legitimate.

The bit about Obama is wrong. We're a member of the OAS and joined every other member state in condemning the action.

[Trollbait]

It seems to me that what you overly sensitive people are all twisted in knots over is the method.

So if the arresting officers had worn a different uniform you would have been ok with it? Or if the impeachment document came before the arrest?

Sounds like a lot of quibble to me.

[Lurker]

Clearly the problem is that the world community and the OAS are just being overly sensitive.

[Trollbait]

Clearly the problem is that the world community and the OAS are just being overly sensitive.

This would not be the first time.

There is a civilian government in control, not a strong man military dictator.

Should Honduras flesh out its constitutional process for the removal of a President who attempts to subvert the nations laws?

Absolutely.

Are they wrong for what has occurred?

I don't think so.

Let this sort itself out over the next few days without the interference of the US or Chavez and his merry band of Marxist thugs.

[Harlowe]

I haven't seen any overly-sensitive people in this thread. You obviously read things too dramatically, because Ddrak and Lurker's counterpoints haven't been the least bit "overly-sensitive".

[Lurker]

The sites Jecks frequents wouldn't even have mentioned this if Chavez wasn't invovled in some way.

As I said, what happened in Honduras is more reminiscent of an old style military coup than how a modern democracy would have handled things.

The OAS is within it's rights to do what they are doing.

[Trollbait]

I haven't seen any overly-sensitive people in this thread. You obviously read things too dramatically, because Ddrak and Lurker's counterpoints haven't been the least bit "overly-sensitive".

Huh?

I am saying they are overly sensitive to the use of the military by the Honduran government. I did not say that their arguments or counterpoints are overly sensitive.

That is why Lurker said what he said. He understood the context of the use of the term "overly sensitive".

The sites Jecks frequents wouldn't even have mentioned this if Chavez wasn't invovled in some way.

Please list the sites I "frequent" and how each one is relevant to the discussion.

As I said, what happened in Honduras is more reminiscent of an old style military coup than how a modern democracy would have handled things.

And you would be wrong. A military coup would not have resulted in the immediate control of the civilian government. I think there is where your disconnect is.

The OAS is within it's rights to do what they are doing.

I did not say they were not. But they can be within their rights and still be wrong. And so can the Honduran government. They could be absolutely right in the removal of Zelaya and be wrong in the method. I do not think so, however.

[Partha]

It seems to me that what you overly sensitive people are all twisted in knots over is the method.

So if the arresting officers had worn a different uniform you would have been ok with it? Or if the impeachment document came before the arrest?

Sounds like a lot of quibble to me.

As is said so often, we are a nation of laws, not men.

As has been noted, the legislature nor the judiciary control the military. There was no reason to need to use the army to forcibly expel this person from the country, when he could have been impeached and arrested. What you have is a coup, no better than the removal of Salvador Allende.

[Trollbait]

Perhaps the government of Honduras knew more about Zelaya than the OAS or Obama knew about Zelaya.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9956U800

His foreign minister, Enrique Ortez Colindres, told CNN's Spanish language service that Zelaya faces allegations of "violation of the constitution, drug trafficking, of protecting organized crime, diverting multimillions in resources."

"Just entering (the country) he is going to be arrested; we already have the arrest warrants ready," Ortez said, adding that Micheletti "is going to obey what the judges say, but it is most likely he (Zelaya) will wind up in jail."

Ortez alleged that "every night three four Venezuelan-registered planes land ... bringing thousands, but thousands of pounds ... of packages of money that are the fruits of drug trafficking."

He said the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration had evidence of those shipments, though DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said he cannot confirm or deny the DEA is investigating Zelaya.

If this is true it would be a nasty egg in the face to several world leaders who are supporting Zelaya.

[Lurker]

The European Union, the OAS, the UN General Assembly, are sure going to have egg on their faces because Zelaya's guilt is the important thing and not whether he was ousted from power in a coup.