Honduras Extends Curfew After Zelaya Returns

[Arwon]

Utter bollocks? Want to bet that Zelaya will try to illegally extend his term or even attempt a full new term?

Then why did Zelaya disobey Congress and the Supreme Court? Why did he illegally sack the commander of the Armed Forces for refusing to organize his referendum?

You are pretty alone in your interpretation of the facts. International media was unanimous in seeing it as a referendum to allow for his re-election. Zelaya is a lier and criminal.

I'm not going to play dissecting quote wars with you, suffice to say most of what you said doesn't accord with the interpretations of anyone but a shrinking cadre of people surrounding Micheletti and a bunch of right-wing bloggers in the US who believe in this fiction of a "military impeachment" somehow adhering to a constitutional norm.

I am not alone in my interpretation of the facts. For one thing, I am supported by the foreign policy of every other government in the entire world.

It might have been two months ago, but I remember what was said and I remember what I posted, which contained actual evidence not wild third-hand speculation from confused international pundits.

First: Text of the question was "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

Now: An interview in El País, one of the two biggest Spanish newspapers, has Zelaya claiming that the coup was in the works days ago, but the US made it clear it was against such a coup and discouraged them for a while.

(assuming my Spanish still works)

Some choice quotes:

Quote:
P. La oposición dice que lo que en realidad hay detrás de la consulta del domingo es su intento de perpetuarse en el poder.

R. Mire... Honestamente. No tengo ninguna opción de quedarme en el poder. La única sería romper el orden constitucional y no lo voy a hacer.

P. ¿Es su palabra?

R. Sí, yo voy a terminar mi gobierno el 27 de enero del 2010. Eso es lo que voy a hacer. Pero sí voy a dejar un proceso para abrir la democracia, abrir la economía abrir la posibilidad de que un presidente pueda ser reelegido en el futuro. Aunque no sé si para entonces voy a estar disponible.

Q: The opposition says that in reality behind the referendum on sunday is an attempt to remain in power?

A: Look, honestly, I have no option to remain in power. This would only break the constititional order and I'm not going to do that

Q: Is that your word?

A: Yes. I will end my rule on January 27, 2010. This is what I will do. But I will leave a process to open democracy and the economy and the posibility that a president may be reelected in future. But at the moment I don't know that I will be able to.

The question here is not why the sitting president tried to assert his own power in probably illegal ways, but rather why the coupsters were so irrational in hating Zelaya that they instigated a coup over such a remote and distant possibility as a vote on having a convention to make reforms that then get voted on again. Instead of, you know, trying to defeat him at the elections or impeach him.

It doesn't seem to be explainable by either economic motivations (he's gonna take our stuff with socialism!) or political ones. Hell, Micheletti is from the same party as Zelaya (the party which, incidentally, is losing stomach for the coup and members of whom have written a letter calling on people to converge on the embassy and protect Zelaya - a station called Radio Globo read it out a few hours ago).

It seems to be almost a personal vendetta, a petty crisis of power among different sectors of the elite in a politically immature country, where one bunch resorted to forged resignation letters and using the military to take over. Which would explain a lot of the frankly dumb, ham-fisted and irrational moves the coupsters have made recently - they can't think straight and make smart moves and won't negotiate or compromise.

 

[RedRalph]

Except in the original thread I was the one using actual Honduran law, word for word, and you were the one appealing to the unsupported opinions of foriegn governments...

And yet you still cannot explain why those governments (150+ of them), with their armies of advisors, legal experts and no ideological love for Zelaya disagree with you. Of course, it isnt possible that they know more than a sailor about the rights and wrongs of this. You have what you have read on the BBC and a few other sites to go by, if that was enough to clearly decide complex legal and constitutional issues like this, then we wouldn't need lawyers, would we? I;'m sure you are now going to tell me how my argument is an unsupported appeal to authority, etc, but just please clarify for the good people: you are indeed saying that you are right and the government of every country that has commented on this is wrong, aren't you?

Bring in Chavez? Precious. In case you were not paying attention (obviously you were not) Chavez brought himself into the situation (you know, that whole threatening to invade thing?).

threatening to invade Honduras? Didnt see that, citation please. In any case, he has no more brought himself into this than the US has. you are the one bringin him into thisargument.

You are obviously oblivious to the fact that Zelaya was publically modeling his regime after that of Chavez, brownshirtesque cadres and all.

Ahhhhhh, thats a shame. you are fool enough to start calling people brownshirts like the anti-healthcare people... sad really, I thought you were a but more clever than that. Oh, citation for the brownshirts thing please.

As I told you above, I don't have to guess as to what Zelaya's supporters are interested in, THEY ALREADY SHOWED US. Obviously you were too busy to concern yourself with their attempts at roiting on the day after the coup. Not peacefully protesting, but RIOTING.

Crowd gets angry the day after the democratically elected leader is removed by the military and forcibly ejected from the country instead of being tried despite the fact that the whole world can see this is a bad idea? youre right, they are thugs. I wonde rif Bush had been removed in such a manner (and he should have been, he took the country to war on a lie) would you have called anyone who rioted goons.

 

[Arwon]

I'm actually curious where people think the big ideological divide comes from given that both Zelaya and Micheletti are members of the Liberal Party.

 

[Camikaze]

No, its not. A military coups means the military is in charge. If they had used some civilian police force would you call it a "police coups?" The entire thing was carried out by and on the authority of the Congress and the Supreme Court. If you insist on calling it a coup (and there is a good arguement for it, though not the strongest arguemen) fine, but there is no justification whatsoever for characterizing it as a military coup.

I repeat, the military did nothing of its own initiative and deferred to civilian authorities in every instance.

No, its not. Was the various upheavings in Russia in the early nineties a military coup? No, because despite the military being used FAR more extensively than it was in Honduras, they were always acting on the orders of a civilian entity.

You want to call it a military coups because you think that is some sort of boggie man that trumps rational discussion of the realities of what happened, and the reality is that as coups go in Latin America this one is radically different than those from a couple decades ago and the absense of military leadership at any point is an amazing development for the region.

The military is an arm of the government, and as I have told you people a thousand times unlike in most western countires (with exceptions, see France/Switzerland) the military is by law a major portion of the national law enforcement apparatus.

The military qualifier of a coup does not refer to the form of government that is instituted after the act of the coup, but refers to the method through which the coup took place. To use wikipedia's definition of a coup 'd'état (redirected from military coup, btw):

A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ&#8242, or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military.

So if we forget the pointless debate as to whether it was a coup at all (which you admit there is a good argument for), then it is a military coup d'état, seeing as the military, as a legitimate portion of the existing state establishment (as you have pointed out) has replaced the government with another, which is a civil government.

The military is an intrisic part of the American regime too, you know, being an official branch of the governmen

Guess what, the US military is obliged to follow the dictates of both Congress and the Supreme Court too, and is also obliged to refuse illegal orders from the President, just like what happened in Honduras.

Intrinsic was perhaps not the best word, but let's continue with it. The military is not an intrinsic aspect of the American political system. It is an intrinsic part of the governmental apparatus, but not the political system. When I referred to the 'regime', I was referring to the political portion of the governmental apparatus, namely the political system. In Honduras, the military is obviously an intrinsic part of that system, through its use as an attack dog within that system by different participants of that system. This is not (currently) the case in America.

 

[moscaverde]

I agree with Arwon. You can't support a coup against an elected governor. Not because the will of the people can't change, but because is too dangerous.

 

[Patroklos]

And yet you still cannot explain why those governments (150+ of them), with their armies of advisors, legal experts and no ideological love for Zelaya disagree with you

Yeah, I can, and I did it in the other thread. How about you go back there and read it instead of pretending that none of this has been said before?

And what the hell do "army advisors" have to do with anything?

Of course, it isnt possible that they know more than a sailor about the rights and wrongs of this. You have what you have read on the BBC and a few other sites to go by, if that was enough to clearly decide complex legal and constitutional issues like this, then we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

Ah, and we are back to the appeal to authrotity that someone with no ability to think for themselves imagines constitutes an arguement. We have been over this before. I am an independant thinker who has notices and pointed out to you where the reality on the ground as we know it has very little in common with the accusations being bandied about. Case in point, the characterization of this as a military coup when there is not one detail supporting this.

I was under the impression you were going to actually discuss the issues and details at hand, but instead you seem to just want to to be a parrot.

threatening to invade Honduras? Didnt see that, citation please. In any case, he has no more brought himself into this than the US has. you are the one bringin him into thisargument.

And you were accusing me of lacking information?!?! You lack even the most mare basis of knowledge to ague this topic from if you don't know this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55R1S820090628?sp=true

Ahhhhhh, thats a shame. you are fool enough to start calling people brownshirts like the anti-healthcare people... sad really, I thought you were a but more clever than that. Oh, citation for the brownshirts thing please.

How many other democratic leaders surround themselves in fatigue clad red beret wearing supporters and are taken seriously as democratic?

Crowd gets angry the day after the democratically elected leader is removed by the military and forcibly ejected from the country instead of being tried despite the fact that the whole world can see this is a bad idea? youre right, they are thugs. I wonde rif Bush had been removed in such a manner (and he should have been, he took the country to war on a lie) would you have called anyone who rioted goons.

Thats funny, because when the other side saw an executive usurp power, violate direct orders from the supreme court, and then try and fire the law enforement agency head for refusing his illegal orders, instead of going out and rioting they pursued legal means for redress. Funny how that works.

 

[Arwon]

Patro, you're arguing as though people don't acknowledge that Zelaya was being dodgy. This is known as a strawman.

 

[luiz]

I'm not going to play dissecting quote wars with you, suffice to say most of what you said doesn't accord with the interpretations of anyone but a shrinking cadre of people surrounding Micheletti and a bunch of right-wing bloggers in the US who believe in this fiction of a "military impeachment" somehow adhering to a constitutional norm.

I am not alone in my interpretation of the facts. For one thing, I am supported by the foreign policy of every other government in the entire world.

My interpretation that he tried to allow his own re-election, going against Congress and the Supreme Court, is the universal interpretation of the facts. While the international community is indeed almost entirely together in condemning the ousting, you are indeed very alone in believing the criminal and lier Zelaya when he says he did not want to extend his own rule.

The question here is not why the sitting president tried to assert his own power in probably illegal ways, but rather why the coupsters were so irrational in hating Zelaya that they instigated a coup over such a remote and distant possibility as a vote on having a convention to make reforms that then get voted on again. Instead of, you know, trying to defeat him at the elections or impeach him.

No, the question is very much the first one. If he was not trying to personally profit from the referendum, why did he create such an institutional crisis? Why would anyone refuse to follow the Supreme Court and Congress, and try to illegally depose the Army commander, if not for dictatorial ambitions? Can you answer this question? Of course he would not admitt it in some interview to the foreign media, but the facts speak for themselves.

And if his actions were indeed illegal, and worthy of an impeachment, then what exactly was wrong? Again, Honduras lacks a proper impeachment procedure (so your suggestion is dishonest), so basically Congress did what it felt was more appropriate.

It doesn't seem to be explainable by either economic motivations (he's gonna take our stuff with socialism!) or political ones. Hell, Micheletti is from the same party as Zelaya (the party which, incidentally, is losing stomach for the coup and members of whom have written a letter calling on people to converge on the embassy and protect Zelaya - a station called Radio Globo read it out a few hours ago).

It seems to be almost a personal vendetta, a petty crisis of power among different sectors of the elite in a politically immature country, where one bunch resorted to forged resignation letters and using the military to take over. Which would explain a lot of the frankly dumb, ham-fisted and irrational moves the coupsters have made recently - they can't think straight and make smart moves and won't negotiate or compromise.

The "coupsters" have been more than willing to compromise. Micheletti has offered his resignation and to accept Zelaya back to the country as long as Zelaya accepted to not go back to office. Of course, the cowboy rejected this perfectly reasonable offer.

The motivations were legitmate fears that Zelaya would copy Chávez. Hardly illogical fears, given what happened in Bolivia and Ecuador. In the same situation I would have the same fears and fully support ousting the Chávez wannabe, who disobeyed the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court in his quest for power.

 

[luiz]

I'm actually curious where people think the big ideological divide comes from given that both Zelaya and Micheletti are members of the Liberal Party.

Apparently you have not followed the case closely enough to comment on it. Zelaya, a rich farmer from a traditional family, was elected as a center-right candidate of a center-right party. That's what the people voted for. But once in office he allied himself with Chávez and promoted "socialistic" policies, which caused his own party to become his greatest opponent and his popularity to drop below 20%.

 

[Patroklos]

The military qualifier of a coup does not refer to the form of government that is instituted after the act of the coup, but refers to the method through which the coup took place. To use wikipedia's definition of a coup 'd'état (redirected from military coup, btw):

This has been told to you several times now, THE MILITARY DID NOT DEPOSE ZELAYA. The Congress did, via an arrest order from the Supreme Court.

So if we forget the pointless debate as to whether it was a coup at all (which you admit there is a good argument for), then it is a military coup d'état, seeing as the military, as a legitimate portion of the existing state establishment (as you have pointed out) has replaced the government with another, which is a civil government.

Again, the military did not remove the Zelaya from office nor did the replace him with anyone. They were nothing more than the law enforement entity tapped to physically move a person from point A to point B. The only significance the military is to this topic is that they rightly refused to obey illegal orders from the president, prompting the intervention of the Supreme Court leading to an arrest warrant being issued for Zelaya.

Intrinsic was perhaps not the best word, but let's continue with it. The military is not an intrinsic aspect of the American political system. It is an intrinsic part of the governmental apparatus, but not the political system.

Your distiction is irrelevant for the topic at hand. It is an intrisic part of the government itself, specifically tasked with obligations and duties to carry out in that role. I quote you my comissioning oath...

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

...which means not only am I obligated by oath to disregard any order that violates the constitution, but I am also obligated to actively resist any force challenging its statutes.

When I referred to the 'regime', I was referring to the political portion of the governmental apparatus, namely the political system. In Honduras, the military is obviously an intrinsic part of that system, through its use as an attack dog within that system by different participants of that system. This is not (currently) the case in America.

The only difference is that the military is far more specifically tasked with active roles via the Honduran constitution and the oath the officers of the Honduran military take. They are also specifically reserved as a nominal law enforcement entity, something the US military is not.

 

[Patroklos]

Patro, you're arguing as though people don't acknowledge that Zelaya was being dodgy. This is known as a strawman.

Its not a strawman, because this fact requires multiple government entities to resist him via oath to include both the Supreme Court and the military. According the the Honduran constitution, the Honduran military could have deposed Zelaya legally all by itself, they simple chose to defer to other civilian entities.

People need to remember that the Honduran constitution neglected to delinate a concrete procudure for removing the president, but it did not fail in charging certain bodies to do so.

 

[Arwon]

What clause is that?

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, I can, and I did it in the other thread. How about you go back there and read it instead of pretending that none of this has been said before?

And what the hell do "army advisors" have to do with anything?

No, you can't. It makes no sense. you still cannot account for the fac that if it was so clear cut that the coup leaders were in the right, most governments would happily have turned a blind eye to this. you just cannot explain why they have still supported Zelaya, when it would have been much, much easier and more ideoligically logical for them to accept the de facto situation.

As for the army of advisors, if I need to explain why that might give governments a bit of an edge over you.

Ah, and we are back to the appeal to authrotity that someone with no ability to think for themselves imagines constitutes an arguement. We have been over this before.

Oh I have plenty of ability ot think for myself, its just more fun watching you try and convince everyone except Luiz that you know better than all the governments on Earth. I know your real motives, everyone does, and no amounht of common sense or logic (even proff of what a coup even is) will get you to admit you may be wrong, so theres no point in me arguing that I know better, when you wont take the word of anyone, no matter how incredibly more qualified they are than you to analyze this situation.

I am an independant thinker

No you aren't, a few weeks ago you saw idiots calling 'left-wing' politicians brownshirts and here you are parroting.

who has notices and pointed out to you where the reality on the ground as we know it has very little in common with the accusations being bandied about. Case in point, the characterization of this as a military coup when there is not one detail supporting this.

Apart from the fact that is batantly is, even if ordered by the court.

I was under the impression you were going to actually discuss the issues and details at hand, but instead you seem to just want to to be a parrot.

Says Mr. Brownshirt.

And you were accusing me of lacking information?!?! You lack even the most mare basis of knowledge to ague this topic from if you don't know this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55R1S820090628?sp=true

Thats weird, mr military doesn't seem to know what the word 'invasion' means. Read the article again, remind me of how the US would act if its embassies were invaded (oh, bar Tehran, sorry to bring up a sore subject) and tell me what, exactly, is wrong with what Chavez said he'd do if the embassy was invaded, given how the Venezuelan ambassador had been treated for absolutely no reason.

How many other democratic leaders surround themselves in fatigue clad red beret wearing supporters and are taken seriously as democratic?

Oh, so now the criteria to be called a 'brownshirt' is the colour of your beret? you are showing your masterful understanding of politics again, not to mention your completely original independent, and logical thinking.

Thats funny, because when the other side saw an executive usurp power, violate direct orders from the supreme court, and then try and fire the law enforement agency head for refusing his illegal orders, instead of going out and rioting they pursued legal means for redress. Funny how that works.

Hey! Wow! you completely avoided my point! Astonishing! No, wait, you do it all the time.

 

[Patroklos]

Oh, so now the criteria to be called a 'brownshirt' is the colour of your beret? you are showing your masterful understanding of politics again, not to mention your completely original independent, and logical thinking.

No, it is have a para military force motivated and organized for political purposes. Just like Chavez has. You seem to be under the impression that the likening of something to "brownshirts" is never appropriate. Well, I don't think you have this impression, you simply want to think that to hide the fact that people of your ideological color actually act like that.

Calling people in fatigues who march in formation and are routinely used to intimidate oppostion at political rallies brownshirts is not the same as calling 91 year old wheelchair bound grandmothers brownshirts.

Wow, when you decide to go off the cliff of ridiculously pathetic ranting you certainly go all out. Have a happy fall lemming

As to the rest, you seem intent on repeating the boot stomping you recieved in the original thread. Surfice to say, as before, not a single arguement you have made is sourced in either the Honduran constitution or other relevant Honduran law while mine is. Until you rectify this fact, your position is as vapid as ever.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can't we get these patriots in Honduras to come help our birfers out over here? They want usurper Obama out of office but they are relying on a Russian double agent to screw things up in the courtroom instead of doing the sensible thing and getting the military to enforce their view of the law.

 

[Arwon]

As to the rest, you seem intent on repeating the boot stomping you recieved in the original thread. Surfice to say, as before, not a single arguement you have made is sourced in either the Honduran constitution or other relevant Honduran law while mine is. Until you rectify this fact, your position is as vapid as ever.

Where is the clause that allows for trial-free military impeachment and faked resignation letters?

 

[Patroklos]

When a trial free military impeachment occurs, we can discuss it.

BTW, impeachment is always trail free, even here

 

[RedRalph]

When a trial free military impeachment occurs, we can discuss it.

BTW, impeachment is always trail free, even here

So, nothing to back your point up with as usual. And nice dodge of the faked resignation letter too.

 

[JollyRoger]

BTW, impeachment is always trail free, even here

But removal is not. The trial is in the Senate.

 

[luiz]

But removal is not. The trial is in the Senate.

In Honduras it was in Congress.