Honduran Coup
The NY Times gives a good summary of what seems to have happened.
As far as I can tell President Zelaya repeatedly tried to violate the constitution in an attempt to allow multiple 4-year terms. (Translation: He wants to follow his buddy Chaves and put himself in a position where he can become President for life). The legal system seems to have worked properly and the Honduran Supreme Court asked the military to oust the scheming bastard, which they promptly did.
What bothers me is that the OAS (Organization of American States) has come out and demanded that the Zelaya government be returned to power. The US seems to support this stance. Hillary Clinton wrote "The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all. We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue. Honduras must embrace the very principles of democracy we reaffirmed at the OAS meeting it hosted less than one month ago.”
It seems to me like the checks and balances in the Honduran Constitution worked and the Military was used only as a last resort to get rid of a President who refused to recognize the rule of law. Are the words 'Military Coup' so distasteful that we must condemn it regardless of the circumstances? Am I possibly misunderstanding what happened?
Of course Chavez is spouting at the mouth again and threatening military action. From Reuters:
Speaking on Venezuelan state television, Chavez -- who has long championed the left in Latin America -- said he had put his troops on alert over the Honduran coup and would do everything necessary to abort the coup against his close ally.He said that if the Venezuela ambassador was killed, or troops entered the Venezuela embassy, "that military junta would be entering a defacto state of war, we would have to act militarily." He said, "I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert."
Chavez, who has in the past threatened military action in the region but never followed through, said that if a new government is sworn in after the coup it would be defeated.
I wonder how fast our condemnation of the so-called Coup would turn to support if Chavez decided to invade to restore Zelaya to power.



Here's an alternate viewpoint. I don't know if this is accurate or not, I'm having trouble making heads or tails of the situation.
Later in the article:
He seems to be liveupdating or something, it gets rather typo-ridden and breathless later on. He does point out that our condemnations have been pretty muted, much more understated than those from the other nations in the region. He's also pointing out that Zelaya was trying to open up the government to more public participation, and that this is probably why he was removed.
It appears that a number of people are claiming that it was CIA-backed, but I don't see much evidence for that. Given our long and bloody history in that area of the world, that's not a bad default assumption to make.... presuming the CIA is involved, somehow, in Latin American coups is far from foolish. In this case, though, at least from the very limited data we have so far, it doesn't look like it was our doing.
Elewis17 wrote:
Another link from Metafilter: Key leaders of Honduras military coup trained in U.S.
Ah, the good old School of the Americas.
Still no direct evidence that it's us, but we're certainly helping to supply the raw material.
Elewis17 wrote:
Another short but interesting link, directly critiquing Cope's NY Times link:
A Tiny Revolution: Smells Like Pulitzer Spirit.
Elewis17 wrote:
Thanks for those posts Malor. Interesting. Perhaps my initial view was a bit, um, skewed.
I do want to make it clear that I don't support ejecting the President to another country. These sorts of things should be sorted out in accordance with the rule of law. I find it likely that there would be some sort of impeachment clause within their constitution. If the President, however, isn't capable of acting in accordance with the constitution, perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing to at least remove him from power while things play out in the courts.
We're starting pretty much from zero knowledge, so I imagine we're probably both way off.
It does strike me as completely strange that a non-binding opinion poll could be used as an excuse to remove a sitting President from power. That, at the very least, stinks to high heaven of corruption. And then saying that that the Commander in Chief of their armed services doesn't have the power to dismiss a general, and that the Supreme Court has the power to reinstate him?
I don't know their Constitution, but that sure looks dirty as hell to me.
Elewis17 wrote:
Here's a discussion of the Honduran Constitution in the context of their political reality. And here's the Constitution (en Espanol, unfortunately for us Anglos).
Republicans being against sex is not good. Sex is popular. -- GOP political strategist Alex Castellanos
Not only has the USA condemned the coup. So has the EU.
The scheming bastards were the coup plotters.
Without a trial? This was a coup and should not be tolerated. Where was the debate in the Honduran congress regarding the impeachment? Or is it up to the military to decide.
Yes, without a trial. Zelaya refused to accept a ruling of the Supreme Court. He then fired the head of the military because he refused to break the law to do Zelaya's bidding. I guess the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress decided they couldn't just sit around debating impeachment while their President acted like a dictator.
Now, kicking him out of the country was going over the line and makes me wonder if the whole coup isn't more nefarious that it seems on the surface. He should have been temporarily relieved of his duties while a trial or impeachment proceedings or whatever was allowed to play itself out.
It seems to me both sides have messed this one up pretty bad.
Seems to me that Honduras has a pretty undemocratic Constitution if they are so worried about non-binding referendums.
Yeah, the version I heard on the BBC this morning more or less lines up with the info in Malor's link, though the link goes into much deeper detail. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
Steam: Podunk
It's not impossible that both sides are scheming bastards.
An army of nightmares, huh? Let's get this party started.
Which is usually 90% of all cases, as the world knows. But it is in the noble traditions of USA to very literally pick "OUR bastard" in the fight. That automatically makes him not a bastard anymore.
XBox Live | Twitter | Flickr
Bastard is not the preferred nomenclature. It's "son of a b1tch", as in....
I think Paleocon is right about pretty much everything. -- Mex
Paleocon is entirely right --DanB
I agree with everything that Paleocon said... --Boudreaux
Paleo is right on. --Legion
I love Paleocon. --- SallyNasty
This was to be on the ballet. It was non-binding. Zelaya would not have been able to be elected for a second term.
The coup plotters overreacted. It is the 21st century.
Coup plotters smother media.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29399379
Right -- The coup plotters are for democracy!
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/30/content_11623326.htm
2 dead, 60 injured in Honduras anti-coup protests
I'll admit, those who orchestrated this coup aren't scoring any points and, at this point, may just be digging their own graves.
OAS secretary general and Argentinian President Kirchner will accompany Zelaya on his return to Honduras on Thursday.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/americas/news/article_1486882.php...
World Bank freezes loans to Honduras.
The coup is pretty much DOA.
But wait ... the new regime has proof that Zelaya is a drug runner in cahoots with Venezuela.
I'm sure that will rally world opinion around their cause.
They also waived Zelaya's resignation letter in the air. The one he wrote in his pjs.
They have absolutely no credibility.
Even if he's reinstalled, with both of the other branches against him, and without military support, well.... let's just say that I wouldn't want to sell him life insurance.
Elewis17 wrote:
Which ones pro America? We should send him guns and lawyers, o and money, lots of money, cause he's the good guy. Whoever it is.
I'm sensing a distinct lack of good guys in this scenario.
An army of nightmares, huh? Let's get this party started.
Since when was that problematic to America?
"The light at the end of the tunnel is just the light of an oncoming train." - Robert Lowell
"Boy exchange is a fun pain in the ass." - LiquidMantis
Xbox Live - Trainwreck GWJ
Oh, it isn't. If we buy you, you can be pretty goddamn evil at home and we won't lift a finger, but you better stay bought. The consequences for rebellion are dire.. See: Noriega and Saddam.
"Out? What do you mean, out? There is no out."
Elewis17 wrote:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/the_honduran_coup_detat.html
What a strange situation. I am not sure who is right in this case. Seems more like a few people fighting eachother to gain ultimate control.
I don't watch, I interact!
Those are some amazing photographs.
Looks like Zelaya's plane was turned away from landing in Honduras Yesterday.
The whole world is against the coup mongers and some of you posters are still saying you don't know who is right?
Here is an analysis done by narco news.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/what-cowardly-honduras-coup-lo...
Beware there is a gruesome photo of the dead 19 year old kid killed by the coup mongers.
They call Zelaya a criminal. Say he would be arrested when he comes back to Honduras. Then they don't let him come back. The coup mongers are losing it.