The following was sent to me by a dear friend and colleague, who is from Honduras and a lawyer. She and her husband (also a lawyer) prepared it and I present it here unchanged with their permission (though I have removed their names for privacy purposes). They make the case that the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court acted to protect the Constitution from the illegal actions of the former President Zelaya. In other words, not the coup the world has mistaken it for. Please take the time to read it.
Dear friends,
It seems that the events in Honduras have taken a rather bloody path and we feel powerless and frustrated that the media express various opinions without (seemingly) having asked for the opinion of one single lawyer.
In what follows we explain briefly the background of the ongoing crisis placing it in the Honduran legal context. This will hopefully eliminate all the “static” and will enable you to have an accurate view of the situation, i.e. that there was no “military-led coup” in Honduras, that the military always acted under civilian control and that the Honduran Constitution has been strictly respected.
Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution provides that a person who has served as President once cannot run the second time for office, and moreover, if one breaks this rule or suggests a reform of this provision, then he/she must immediately cease holding public office, and will be prohibited from holding public office for the next 10 years. The same sanction applies to those who aid and abet such a person.
This article is further reinforced by article 374, which says that any reform of the Constitution cannot change the articles dealing, among others, with the duration of the presidential mandate and with the prohibition of a president from running a second time.
Starting from February 2009, Manuel Zelaya, President of Honduras at the time, repeatedly talked of a reform of the Constitution. Initially he publicly admitted that the purpose of the change was to allow the President to run for a second mandate. However, being warned of the consequences this would entail under article 239 of the Constitution, he asserted, in subsequent interventions, that he only wanted to suggest certain changes to the Constitution, without specifying them.
Zelaya suggested organizing a referendum which was supposed to ask the Hondurans whether they would like a change in the Constitution. However, according to Article 373, the decision to change the Constitution can only be taken by the Congress (i.e. Parliament) with a qualified majority of two thirds of the votes, and the Congress is also the only one able to decide if a public consultation process is to be launched.
Article 5 of the Constitution provides that referenda or plebiscites can be organized in order to consult the people on issues of major national interest. The request to organize a referendum can be made by minimum 10 congressmen, by the President, through a resolution of the Council of Ministers, or by minimum 6% of the voters, but it must be analyzed by the Congress and approved with a majority of two thirds of the total number of congressmen. If the referendum is approved, the Congress must subsequently pass a decree determining the terms of the consultation and ordering the Electoral Tribunal to handle the logistics.
Despite of the provisions of article 5 mentioned above, on March 23, 2009, the President issued an Executive Decree, through which he called upon a public consultation with the ultimate goal of summoning a National Constituent Assembly to adopt a new Constitution. This Executive Decree was never published, as required by law, in order to prevent it from being challenged in court.
However, the Attorney General, (who is from the same political party as the ex-president) challenged the unpublished decree. The competent judicial tribunal admitted the Attorney General’s action, and decided, on May 27, 2009, to suspend the application of the decree, may it be published or not.
Two days later, on May 29, 2009, following the request of the Attorney General, the tribunal clarified its decision and stated that its ruling also applied to any other current or future administrative acts, having the same object and purpose as the suspended decree, including any change of name of the consultative process.
However, the President of Honduras issued a second Executive Decree, which annulled the first (concerning a “public consultation”) and which ordered a so-called “national poll” that would take place on Sunday, June 28 of 2009. This national poll involved asking the following question: “Are you in favor of the addition of a fourth voting box in the general elections of 2009, in which the people will decide on the summoning of a National Constituent Assembly?”
Dated May 26, 2009, this second decree was not published until June 25, 2009. In the interval between May 29 and June 25, the President challenged unsuccessfully the decision of the tribunal to suspend any presidential decree which would concern the organization of a public consultation.
In the same interval, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Attorney General began legal actions to confiscate the poll’s materials and named the Air Force Chief as depositary of the confiscated items.
The President and a group of his followers rejected the May 27 court decision and assaulted the Air Force facilities in Tegucigalpa, where the confiscated materials were being kept. In the end, the second Executive Decree was published on June 25 and the President asked the military (more specifically the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to assist with the preparations of the referendum, which was supposed to take place only three days from publication, on June 28, 2009.
The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff refused to carry out the order, arguing that the President’s disposition conflicted with a court decision. As a result, the President sacked him, without following the procedure for sacking high military officials provided by the Constitutive Law of the Army. The civilian minister of Defense, the direct superior of the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, resigned in sign of protest.
On the same day the President’s decision to sack the military official was challenged before the Supreme Court according to a so-called “recurso de amparo” (a procedure destined to protect an individual’s constitutional rights). As a result, the Constitutional Section of the Supreme Court suspended (in unanimity) the President’s act and ordered that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be reinstated in his function.
Still on the same day, the Attorney General decided to prosecute the President on three counts (acting against the country’s form of government, treason, and abuse of authority).
The next day the Supreme Court admitted the Attorney General’s request (unanimously) and issued an arrest warrant. According to the Attorney General, the President, among others, usurped the powers of the Congress, the only one able to approve a public consultation process. No impeachment procedure was necessary, as article 2 of the Honduran Constitution provides that the usurpation of constitutional powers is an act of treason, and the responsibility in this case is engaged ex-officio.
According to article 273 of the Honduran Constitution, one of the missions of the Army is to defend the Constitution, so the arrest warrant was sent by the Supreme Court to the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and it was carried out by the Army.
The events in Honduras were not a result of a conflict between the President and the Judicial Power exclusively. On June 23, 2009, (two days before the second decree was published) the Congress passed a law forbidding holding referenda and plebiscites less than 180 days before the next general elections (the next elections are set for 29 November 2009). A multi-party commission named by the Congress to investigate the President concluded that Zelaya had violated Honduran law. That commission asked the Congress to declare him unfit to govern. Zelaya was deposed by the Congress unanimously, which chose its interim successor following the constitutional process established in article 242, regarding the succession of the President in case of a definite absence.
The international community almost unanimously condemned the actions of the Supreme Court and of the Honduran Congress calling the entire series of events a “military-led coup”, without actually explaining what parts of the Honduran Constitution have been infringed. International organizations such as the Organization of the American States and the United Nations refused to recognize the current government and asked for Manuel Zelaya to be restored to his previous position. This makes little sense, since this would involve replacing those who allegedly breached the Constitution by ousting Zelaya with yet another Constitution infringer.
This also seems to imply that only the executive power represents democracy in Latin America or that at least this power is “more equal” than the others. The fact that a president was elected democratically does not mean that he continues to represent the people who voted for him no matter what he/she does. All elected officials must still act in accordance with the law.
The opinion of the “international community”, as surprising as it is, only reflects the opinions of head of states and governments, i.e. holders of the executive power, and displays a striking ignorance of the Honduran legal system. It would be extremely interesting what the Supreme Courts and Parliaments around the world think.
Last week thousands of people participated to peaceful demonstrations in different cities in Honduras in support of the Constitution and the interim government. These were not covered by news networks and were only sporadically labeled in the international press as “noisy rallies”. Not having any violent component, they did not qualify as “breaking news”. As soon as blood started to be spilled because of the protests of a minority (according to Reuters Zelaya’s approval rating before being ousted was below 30%), the media were all over it. We are sorry we cannot convince the world’s leaders not to make Honduras a “breaking news” topic, but we hope that you will forward this to your friends, who in this way will be able to watch the news with a critical eye.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 160
Thank you for this very informative piece. Where are our "experts" in foreign policy and rule of law?
Nice Orwellian contortions.
Getting elected. Organizing referendums. Proposing constitutional amendments. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing democracy.
Kidnapping the president. Installing an unelected strongman. Suspending civil liberties. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing a coup.
Perhaps you should read it again, Politic Jock. It explains the part about the Constitution and who was doing what. According to the article, the only one doing anything illegally was the former President. Do you have information to the contrary?
David K., right on! The Obama administration has put the U.S. on the wrong side of theis dispute and raised serious questions aboutt he President's commitment to American values.
Randy - Nonwithstanding your non sequitur, I've been spinning around the news web sites to catch up and it appears that the US, the EU, the OAS, the UN and others almost universally are calling for Zelaya to be reinstated. There's a disconnect here, and I'm not sure what it is yet.
David, there is no question that the governments involved lined up against Zelaya's forceful removal. It is understandable that they fear a precedent, given the history of South and Central America.
I honestly don't believe that our government, or the others, looked beyond the military action involved, despite the opinions from the government, the Catholic bishops, and a significant percentage of the population that the action taken was legal.
I question why President Obama took a position against Honduras, and I would welcome any information you can uncover.
I would agree with you, Randy, that it appears the world's governments have not looked beyond the military action. Again, this is where there appears to be a disconnect that is bothering me. If the article above accurately confers the legal side of the event, and I have no reason to doubt its veracity, then I wonder how the world can take the position it almost universally appears to be taking.
I hope they get that sorted out then.
"All elected officials must still act in accordance with the law."
Is it any wonder that the US, following the Bush years of expanding executive authority and signing statements that excluded the President from being subject to laws of the land , would support Zelaya's actions? Representative and constitutional government is realistically a sham in this day and age. Keeping people in power who support certain economic and international policies has always been the goal of the US, regardless of how the people of that country vote, or what its constitution states.
I admit that I have been traveling the last week so have not been able to catch up on all of the coverage in the US and Europe.
To me, seeing a letter like this, from people who actually know the country and have the legal knowledge to understand the actions taken, is very persuasive.
I am trying to learn as much as I can. My best hope is that this works out for the people of Honduras, notwithstanding the politics of the rest of the world.
It is unfortunate that a country such as Honduras with very little wealth and a large portion of its population in poverty cannot have ethical leaders with the interest of the country's progress instead of their own ambitions in mind. We spent some time on Roatan and I have not seen poverty like that in any other country I've travelled to. Nightly, there were gunshots ringing out in the hills. We had an opportunity to travel to the mainland, but were advised to hire a bodyguard, so decided against it.
Honduras' constitutional government is so young, and has been manipulated by the US in order to keep a large military presence in Central America. That, along with some devastating weather events, has kept it from truly realizing its full potential. I hope that the results of these actions will truly empower the population to take control of their own country.
Sheryl,
It's your president Obama who supports the creep. You are so hung up on your hatred of Bush, do you not watch the news? Do you not read?
Carol! I didn't know you were not a US citizen! Geez, all this time I should have been reading your comments in a totally different light.
Many in Congress of course see the folly in that .... but as yet Obama does not.
Great post. That situation sounds like it could get worse before it gets better.
Thank you for publishing this letter, David. It is a rare thing to hear the voice of the people in these situations, or the truth of the matter. And shows our media for what it really is - puppets of global corporate interests.
Very useful perspective on the Honduras crisis, David. I suppose that the Heads of States viewpoint is that you can't remove an elected leader until AFTER he eliminates the rule of law.
But after he does that, how is anybody going to have a realistic shot at getting rid of him?
Thanks for maintaining a level head and a balance, David. I would not expect less.
Thanks fr the very informative peice!
Something stinks!!!
Quote:
On June 23, 2009, (two days before the second decree was published) the Congress passed a law forbidding holding referenda and plebiscites less than 180 days before the next general elections (the next elections are set for 29 November 2009).
Right as they were about to vote a referendum, they OUTLAWED referendums?
This stinks of corruption. Using laws to further dictatorships is NOT a democracy.
I now know why the people fight the government despite the LAWS ENACTED to LEGITIMIZE their BASTARD government.
THESE LAWYERS DON'T SEE THE IRREGULARITIES? THEY MUST BE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!
Rude - I think if you re-read the article you will find that it clarifies things for you. The president was trying to illegally force a "poll." Also, I think you may want to think about who, in fact, was acting like a dictator in this piece.
As I have said, I have been travelling and thus am not up on the details. However, I consider the writer to be a friend and of the highest integrity, and given birthright and family am inclined to find the article persuasive.
Rude, I have to agree with David. The former president was trying the give himself a second term that is expressly forbidden by their Constitution. He tried to force and election where he was an illegal candidate, fired the head of the military who wouldn't agree with his plan, and then attempted to storm a military installation with his supporters and steal election ballots so he could hold an illegal election. Both the legislature and supreme court impeached him for these illegal acts, and elected the new president to serve in the interim.
Question. Do you support the former president who was impeached (as President Obama does) or do you support the new president duly elected by the legislature and supreme court?
David K.,
Ask and you shall receive:
http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html
Politic Jock - I assume you are responding to my response to your earlier comment. Thanks for the URL. I'll leave the lawyers to address the finer points of his interpretation of Honduran law.
My first impression of the blog at the URL was to use the word you used in your initial comment - contortions. It seems he is parsing beyond credibility. It also appears to me that he has stated that Zelaya was not trying to bypass the Constitutional law, and then proceeds to show how he attempted to do exactly that.
As you may or may not know, I'm not a big fan at drawing conclusions solely based on bloggers, especially those where their biases cannot be immediately discerned.
Thank you for posting this. It is understandable that the two other parts of a constitutional government would have wanted ways to stop executive concentration and continuation of power. Looking at the present situation in the U.S. would be sobering indeed. The inability of executives to carry through on their words is a phenomenon it is difficult to strategize against. Some have proposed performance bonds that would fine executives for breaking specific promises. There is some irony in contemplating this. Who would issue the bonds, AIG?
And, thanks for a very informative piece, too!
"In the interval between May 29 and June 25, the President challenged unsuccessfully the decision of the tribunal to suspend any presidential decree which would concern the organization of a public consultation"
IN OTHER WORDS, THE VOTERS DON'T RUN THE GOVERNMENT!!!!! THE TRIBUNALS DO!!!!!
Again, if you re-read the piece I think you'll find that the judicial branch of the government carried out its Constitutional authority (along with the legislative branch) to keep the Executive branch from illegally violating the Constitution.
Rude, so you don't agree with the authority of our Supreme Court?
I might add that from what I've been able to discern, the voters seem pretty happy that Zelaya is gone. So it would seem the voters and the tribunals are in agreement.
This is wonderful, and I am aware of what kind of man Zelaya is. His close ties to Castro, and Chavez say enough. What I worry about is why our president, Obama, is so upset by it. Oh yes, he is friends with Chavez and took the book about how evil America is as a gift from the socialist pig.
I will reiterate what I said earlier, which is that I have been travelling and thus am not up on all the details. However, I consider the writer to be a friend and of the highest integrity, and given birthright and family am inclined to find the article persuasive. She certainly is quite passionate that this was the right thing to do for the country, and that everyone followed the law and Constitution except the former President Zelaya.
Please read the article and decide for yourselves, and by all means seek additional information from other reliable sources. We have a tendency to rush to judgment based on inadequate, and sometimes inaccurate, information. It is wise to be informed prior to forming an opinion.
There’s very little truth to anything you’ve read about the coup in American newspapers.
President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feudal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.
Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year. The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters.
"There’s very little truth to anything you’ve read about the coup in American newspapers."
I think this article demonstrates that is true.
"President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor,"
Except that the wage increase was for a specific set of the educated community and union folks, and was designed to facilitate artificial "support." It did nothing for the poor. Kind of like giving big raises to the richer folks in DC and nothing to the poorer communities.
"The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feudal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics."
Actually, the support for the interim government, and the removal of Zelaya, crosses all socioeconomic groups. According to my sources, the ratio of supporters of the interim government to Zelaya is about 70/30. Given that 70% of the country is poverty stricken, that means a lot of all classes support the new government.
"Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year."
How is that? The idea was to force a change that would allow him to vie for reelection.
"The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters."
The very clear and comprehensive legal analysis above, written by a Honduran lawyer, would seem to make your statement inaccurate.
thanks for the information
it is interesting to read here the western government being accused of backing the ousted president where on other blogs the western govenement is being accused of backing the ouster....seems the people who are for the ousting of zelaya blame the usa for trying to get him reinstalled and the ones against the ousting blame the usa for backing it...the usa is the unlitmate evil on both sides of the fence.....lol
And isn't it a sad fact that because of the CIA meddling for ages in Latin America, one will never really know for years to come exactly HOW they impacted the actions in Honduras?
I wish we'd just stay the hell out of everyone else's business - overtly and covertly. Obama's got the right message. The US has no right to tell another government what to do. And I hope that's not just for show, while the CIA goes about its merry way doing what its done for years.
the point i was trying to make is the cia is blamed no matter what happens or which side of the issuse.....you don't think it might be possible that some of the things the cia is accused of is propoganda? i mean ....they can't be responsible for both side and how much is there actual proof of and how much is pure speculation that everyone laps up as truth?
The CIA is blamed because of their history, proven after the fact when the ashes settle, Lecia. Unfortunately, we will probably not really know their real involvement until someone retires and decides to spill his guts in a memoir, 10 years from now.
I admit that I don't know how the governments of the world are all reacting, and am basing my comments only on what little I've been able to pick up since I returned from my trip.
There does seem to be some disconnects here.
As for the CIA, based on previous confirmed activities (and other unconfirmed suspicions), the world finds it easy to lay blame upon us. The fact is that we have been involved in "regime change" in the past, which has severely impacted our international credibility.
That said, I should note that I have not seen any viable accusation that the US or anyone else had anything to do with this incident. This was a Honduran democracy acting upon its own Constitutional authority.
Other than the fact that the US has a large military presence there, David. Anywhere we have large military installations and personnel, you can bet we're involved in the government activities.
Do we have a large military presence there, Sheryl?
The only thing I found was a joint air base (Soto Cano), which is actually a Honduran military installation in which we have "approximately 550 US military personnel and more than 650 US and Honduran civilians. According to what I found, the US Air Force there focuses on weather forecasting, fire protection and maintaining a runway. The Army Forces operate finance, food service and transportation. Joint Security Forces is comprised of Air Force, Army and Marine force protection personnel who patrol the base and downtown areas frequented by US service members. The 1st Battalion, 228th Aviation Regiment performs a variety of airlift support missions throughout Central and South America with UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook helicopters. US forces are guests here on the base which is the home of the Honduran Air Force Academy."
Thus, it seems like it is more of a support base than anything substantive.
I don't know the personnel count, but from what I could find on the US history in that region, the military base was quite substantial and was set up to fight the contra forces in El Salvadore.
Again, this is all I could find:
"In the absence of a large security assistance program, defense cooperation has taken the form of increased participation by the Honduran armed forces in military-to-military contact programs and bilateral and multilateral combined exercises oriented toward peacekeeping, disaster relief, humanitarian/civic assistance, and counternarcotics. The U.S. Joint Task Force Bravo (JTF-B), stationed at the Honduran Soto Cano Air Base, plays a vital role in supporting combined exercises in Honduras and in neighboring Central American countries. JTF-Bravo plays a critical role in helping the United States respond to natural disasters in Central America by serving as a platform for rescue missions, repairing critical infrastructure, and in meeting high priority health and sanitation needs. JTF-Bravo forces have helped deliver millions of dollars worth of privately donated goods to those in need."
It does say that "during the 1980s, Honduras supported U.S. policy opposing a revolutionary Marxist government in Nicaragua and an active leftist insurgency in El Salvador." Though it doesn't appear we have any substantial forces there any more (if ever).
"During the early 1980s, the United States established a continuing military presence in Honduras with the purpose of supporting the Contra guerillas fighting the Nicaraguan government and also developed an air strip and a modern port in Honduras. Though spared the bloody civil wars wracking its neighbors, the Honduran army quietly waged a campaign against Marxist-Leninist militias such as Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement, notorious for kidnappings and bombings, and allegedly some non-militants. The operation included a CIA-backed campaign of extra-judicial killings by government-backed units, most notably Battalion 316."
"Battalion 316 was a Honduran army unit responsible for carrying out of political assassinations and torture of suspected political opponents of the government during the 1980s. Battalion members received training and support from the United States CIA both in Honduras and at U.S. military bases, as well as from Alfredo Mario Mingolla and other members of the Argentine Batallion 601 (including Ciga Correa, who had collaborated with the Chilean DINA in assassinating General Carlos Prats and had trained, along with Seineldin, the AAA. The Battalion 316 was also trained by Pinochet's Chile."
There may be 'official' personnel numbers of the US military base there in Honduras, but history shows us that our covert and overt military personnel have been intimately involved for years in their government.
"Marxist-Leninist" is usually a code word meaning that there were populist groups fighting for the rights of the indigenous people, over the powerful elements who were in cahoots with US and other outside national interests to establish domination over and ownership of the nation's resources.
I've been to that air base (Soto Cano)you mention David, we are guests on a small part of it. It doubles as a disaster relief/drug interdiction base today but I'm sure it also has intel guys there too. It used to have NSA aircraft in the 80s/90s.
Its almost all Air Force/Army aviation stationed there. Its not considered a bad tour as the Hondurans seem to like us but it wasn't as popular as other stations near bigger cities. We jumped into Honduras several times to train with their army and warn Nicaragua to stay on its side of the border. The places we went, the locals were always happy to see us (and our medics) and usually put on good feeds. As I spoke Spanish, I usually got a lot of interaction with them.
The various rebel/terrorist groups had all kinds of motives but the Sov bloc weaponry showed where the chief influence came from.
Thanks for the personal insights on Soto Cano, Charles.
I believe the most disturbing aspect of this story is that our President and the Organization of American States (OAS) supported the former president who tried to strong arm himself into an illegal second term. OAS has expelled Honduras and admitted Cuba in its place, so we know it is leaning to the left.
And what does it tell the American people, when we have a President who supports a lawbreaking ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (no friend of democracy or constitutional government)? Is he finally showing his leftist stripes by his actions after posing as a supporter of constitutional democracy through his campaign?
Perhaps the Honduran impeachment is not the only one that the American people should be thinking about.
This is the disconnect I'm having trouble with, Randy. I'm a bit puzzled why the world community (not just the US) seems to be behind Zelaya, given the information in the article above.
I'll ignore the ideological extrapolation since it isn't relevant to the article.
David, you have my permission to ignore the whole damn comment if you wish. It's a free country. I wasn't aware that Gather limited comments to what you feel is relevant to your article, but if you want to make such judgements go ahead.
Most posters are open to new perspectives, but you seem to be pretty linear about your posts. Lighten up!
I don't watch the news much -- this is the first I've really heard about it.
this might be of some interest and maybe show a little of the other side of the story?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160901.html
As part of their effort to consolidate power officials have moved quickly to restrain the free flow of information, in particular by cracking down on progressive leaning media. Only TV stations sympathetic to the newly installed coup regime have been left alone while others have been shut down. The climate of repression is similar to what we have seen elsewhere in Latin America in recent years. Specifically, there are eerie parallels to the April, 2002 coup in Venezuela when the briefly installed right wing government imposed a media blackout to further its own political ends.
I'm always a bit leery of accepting the word of a blogger at face value, especially without any understanding of the blogger's particular biases. So I'll have to bypass this one and look for information on sources where I can better assess the veracity. Thanks for the link.
just out of curiosity who do you consider a more reliable source of information?
I can't name "a more reliable source" except to say that bloggers as a group are usually very low on the reliability index. They tend to be quite biased in their perspectives, and since there is no peer-review they can write whatever they want. And they usually do, whether it has any basis in reality or not. That isn't to same that some bloggers don't work very hard to get it right, but it's very difficult to know which are which.
I prefer direct sources if I can get them (i.e., in this case people on the ground in Honduras or with contacts on the ground in Honduras). Based on those sources so far it appears there was some shut down of the TV stations early on, but those were back online. Other media outlets were shut down not by the government but by the operators as they either hid out from arrest (for treason) or were arrested. Of course, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighting, so the information is still pretty sketchy at the moment.
"Only TV stations sympathetic to the newly installed coup regime have been left alone while others have been shut down"
i don't know about you but this does not sound like demorcracy in action to me
lecia, as I understand it, the former president tried to seize a second term unconstitutionally. That qualifies as a revolution.
So, I don't have any trouble understanding why the government would try to shut down media supporting a revolution. Do you?
so if the usa impeaches a president (which mind you they did not impeach him they when into his home, dragged him out of bed and threw him out of the country) then all media in favor of said president should be shut down and the reporters detained?
how about killing unarmed protesters....this is to halt the "revolution" too?
lecia, how about when the legislature and the supreme court voted in a new president to replace the old president who had tried to illegally sieze the election and gain a second term?
I haven't read about any killing of unarmed protesters, but I don't think the new president would have the support of the Catholic bishops if that had happened.
Certainly the deaths of the Zelaya supporters who tried to greet him at the airport will need to be investigated. I've learned not to accept the initial reports and wait for more information to come in.
As for the "impeachment," if I read the article correctly the violations of the Constitution allowed law enforcement (in this case, the military at the direction of the Supreme Court) to arrest Zelaya and rather than imprison him, strike a deal where he would be allowed to leave the country (which they naturally facilitated). Impeachment is an inappropriate and irrelevant term in this case.
here read this
http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/News/2009/jul/6/news-local/berthoud-man-witness-hond
"Impeachment" is the term the U.S. uses for removal from office.
Again, I really don't care what you believe is relevant or appropriate, I am just trying to use well known terms to communicate with my fellow Gather members.
Actually, I was responding to lecia's use of the word impeachment and don't even see where you used it in this particular comment substring. Perhaps it's my turn to say "lighten up." :)
One thing I noticed as I read the article is that the Honduran Constitution seems to have been written to foresee actions such as those that Zelaya attempted. The Honduran Constitution, which if I'm correct was entered into force in 1982, seems to have placed protections against the sort of "extensions of presidential terms" that have plagued some other countries (e.g., Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). It appears, again according to the article, that these very protections were the ones violated by Zelaya.
David, after a little verbal sparring let me complement you on your post and the time you have taken to get the facts. The MSM, CNN, and Fox seem to have jumped to the same conclusion as the U.N. without presenting any facts to support that conclusion, so it has been hard to get the facts.
I do understand that Zelaya tried to rally his supporters and reenter Honduras some time after his U.N. appearance. His plane was blocked from landing, but there was some violence involving the government and his supporters.
In any event, I gave you a 10 for the post and I appreciate your efforts.
Thank you Randy. I appreciate it.
I'm increasingly disappointed by the media, and not just the MSM (MSM-bashing has become a convenient crutch). Probably because of the competition and the public's tendency to only listen to sensationalistic garbage, the media outlets tend to leap to whatever conclusion they can 1) get on the air fast, and 2) raise some heckels (which improves viewership and increases ad revenues, etc). Frankly, I put all the blame on us, the viewers/readers/listeners.
My view of the media's role is that they should be digging into the realities. Find out what really is going on and present it analytically, not just some "little of this side and little of that side." They should be getting it right, not getting it fast.
But again, fast, controversial, and partisan is what we keep telling the media what we want, so that 's what they give us.
One of Zelaya's problems when he tried to reenter the country was he flew in on a Venezuelan aircraft. As this was done without permission form the Honduran government, it angered quite a few people apparently. He sure did no favors to his cause using a Venezuelan aircraft (unsure if it was military or civil) and having Chavez/Castro as his loudest supporters.
Agreed, Charles. Violating sovereign airspace in a foreign countries aircraft was a pretty dumb stunt. And Chavez of all people. Kind of supports the idea that the Hondurans were afraid that Zelaya's Chavez-wannabe tendencies has gotten out of control.
David ... I must mark this day. We agree (I think). :)
Thank you for this article. Mine got small notice ... maybe yours will make a wave or two irt this issue. I've put the links to mine below if you are interested in my take on it from a day or couple ago?
The report sent to you by your friend is a more fleshed-out version of what I have heard and read.
Honduras - the ousting of a Chavez supporting "president"
Honduras - the ousting of a Chavez-supporting "president" (better known as a Chavez-Wannabe) UPDATE
Oh, I'm sure we've agreed on something in the past.
I left comments on both your articles.
I'm sure we have too. I guess what I meant by that was you are the first of my liberal leaning friends to agree (that I know of).
Welcome home, btw! :)
I'll check for your comments.
It's a small point, but I think you'll find the term "liberal leaning" is a misnomer for me. I am "logic leaning." Sometimes that sounds liberal; sometimes conservative; but always logical. I don't always attain it, but I do strive for it. And I expect it from others.
David ... I thought it didn't feel exactly right when I wrote it; but never would have thought to use the phrase 'logic leaning.' +smiling+ Not that it doesn't describe you at times, just that I wouldn't have thought of it. Sooooo, liberal leaning was the best I could do.
Thanks for the comments. :)
Another comment that just disappeared. Gather, get your act together so I don't have to write everything twice.
"Certainly the deaths of the Zelaya supporters who tried to greet him at the airport will need to be investigated. I've learned not to accept the initial reports and wait for more information to come in."
the point i am trying to make here david is you won't get unbiased reporting because they have shut down all media except what they control so you will get the state version only....does this ring a bell with what happened in another counrty recently?
i agree it looks like the prez violated the constitution but what the new regime is doing now is a violation of the constitution in itself, that is i think they are suppose to have freedom of the press and freedom to protest...please correct me if i am wrong
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that the contention that "they have shut down all media except what they control" is not yet confirmed as fact in my mind. I'm working on getting some insight on that issue.
If the contention is not true, then the conclusion drawn from it would also not be true.
If I can get some confirmation one way or the other I'll post it.
It seems to me that a democracy is rule by people.
Changing the rules for those people to fit the outcome and to later cry "UNCONSTITUTIONA" is NOT democracy.
If the right started impeachment of president Obama and the Dems unified in changing laws to thwart that attempt, who would be on the side of democracy?
The spin of the right is not for a democracy but like the Honduran tribunals, to keep their own kind in power, right wingers.
I believe the right is worried about democracy like I believe they care about patients rights in the Healthcare debate, that suit just does NOT fit them.
I'm really having a hard time following your logic, Rude. You seem to be mixing up who is doing what, though it may be simply my confusion trying to follow you. The insertion of the healthcare debate information just muddles the logic further to me. Sorry I'm missing your point here.
You may be interested in this report, David. It may explain one of the reasons for the US support of the Zelaya. He (and his supporters) may know where the skeletons are hidden, as they say.
Sheryl, thank you for your post and the link which provides needed context to the actions of the U.S. and others.
In reading the conclusions, I'm not sure why this would make too many in the Obama administration worry about past skeletons. Even if the report did somehow stimulate US support for Zelaya, it wouldn't explain why most of the rest of the world also seems to be supporting him. In fact, many in the rest of the world would be happy to expose any US complicity in historical human rights abuses in Honduras.
Was there a specific part of the report which you felt would be particularly persuasive to US support for Zelaya?
From what I can glean, most of the report outlines the frustrations of getting FOIA reports from the US, filled in with leaks from various personnel both on the US and Honduran side attesting the the strong US involvement in human rights violations in Honduras, and their obvious cover-up of such activity. There are still people in high places in our government who were directly involved in these violations and whose careers would be adversely affected if the truth came out.
As for the rest of the world's governments being willing to bring down the US in regard to their involvement in Honduras, I think you give other government leaders too much credit, David. Honduras is not a 'player' on the world stage. What little they might gain in exposing the US's involvement would be greatly outweighed by the negative impact on their own relations with the US and what they stand to gain from them.
Whether we like it or not, there is a clear hierarchy in this world of power. The lives of the victims in Dafur are not equal to the lives of the victims in 9/11.
Your last paragraph is very sad. We do seem to have a history of prioritizing causes, and too often it comes down to resources. Darfur has none, thus we talk and do little else. Iraq had some, so we acted. Iran had some, so we installed the Shah. Etc. etc. etc.
My understanding is that the elections that were scheduled for November 29, 2009 are scheduled to go ahead as planned. In fact, I saw one note suggesting that they might push up the elections due to the continuing controversy.
Generally those that take power by coup don't rush to hold national elections.
another paper stating the crack down on the media
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/1124528.html
While the country has clamped down on local media by interrupting the signal to stations deemed friendly to Zelaya, Micheletti has granted interviews to foreign media outlets as he seeks to drum up his international message that Sunday morning's military removal of Zelaya from his bedroom in the early morning hours was not a coup but a ''constitutional succession.''
lecia - I strongly urge you to take a look at Zelaya's restrictions on the media and free speech (including the restrictions and monitoring of cell phones) during his reign. Do your homework before you accuse one side to the exclusion of the other.
An interesting point. We have a habit of not noticing so much when the guy we like is doing it, and suddenly noticing a lot when the guy we don't like is doing the same thing.
It impacts credibility.
hey, i'm not on anyones "side" why would i be? i was just pointing out that these people who ousted the prez for his "treason" are not the choir boys some are trying to make them out to be
and so sheryl because zelaya had restrictions on the media and free speech then it is only right that the new regime does it also?
Again I already left a comment and then it disappeared. What's going on Gather?
The comment was that most (but not all) of the media restrictions were temporary and the result of a lack of clear idea of what to do given how the ousters took themselves off guard. I also said that the new interim government has to have transparency, which means they need to allow dissenting opinions (though not riots) and freedom of the press. They won't gain international acceptance if they act undemocratically. Luckily they have started to get beyond the initial overreaction and be more transparent about what they did and why.
and many more
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/the-americas/090703/honduras-media-crackdown
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-honduras-coup30-2009jun30,0,3920834.story?track=rss
Honduras' de facto rulers also imposed a media blackout, preventing international newspapers from circulating and blocking access to Internet news sites and international cable television news networks.
And this is exactly what I said. That even though the restrictions were for the most part short term and reflexive, the media and bloggers will continue to report them as if they are still going on.
They are not (for the most part).
lecia, I understand that Zelaya is taking his plan from the Chavez playbook, and that he is attempting to rally his supporters to return him to office when he returns.
Do you support Zelaya and his attempt to overthrow the government by revolution?
Seems there has been some media restrictions. I'm trying to get more information on why.
where are you finding the imformation that zelay was trying to start a revolution? did anyone see armed protestore trying to overthrow the government? with your logic randy anytime someone protest aginst a choice of their government it is revolution
I would agree that the term revolution as most people understand it seems not to be appropriate in this case.
When you actually read this stuff, you have no reason to questions why many in the world despise the US government. Whether we like to face it or not, our government IS us...they represent us around the world. Abu Ghraib was nothing new or different. This has been going on for years and years, all the while we put our military magnets on our cars, wear our flag pins and proclaim our country the greatest on earth...and some of the victims are Americans. When will we finally wake up and see the truth? Only then can we fix it.
Sheryl, why do you think that the world doesn't despise the communists who trained the rebels to do many of the things mentioned in the article and worse.
I'm not defending the actions, but when foreign governments send agents into a country to incite a violent overthrow of their government, and that government appeals to an ally for help in overcoming the revolutionaries, it is not a simple situation. And, the Sun article focused on government operatives, not the rebels. I wonder why?
You may gain some additional perspective from this article -
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/72482
When I assess an article, I first look at the source of its publication. This magazine touts articles such as the myth of gitmo and the canard of torture? Seriously? And this is an unbiased source for the 'other side of the story'? I will certainly read it, but take it from whence it comes, Randy. I will believe a number of original and actual research sources over an obviously partisan publication any day. Perhaps you could also cite the Heritage Foundation's assessment? That would be equally unbiased.
I can confirm from personal experience that the US is not always held in the highest regard by the world community. Part of the complaint has been not so much that we do these things, but that we proselytize our superior morality and then do these things that contradict it. Add to that the fact that our "superpower" status makes it hard for others to say much about it for fear of reprisals. The powerlessness leads to resentment, which leads to distrust. It's not all our fault, of course, but it is reality. And the distrust became more acute this decade.
That is one reason our eventual response to this is so critical. While our initial response may be in conflict with the information presented in this article, it is important that the US not be seen as interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, at least not unilaterally. That said, we have to be able to do the right thing; the problem is determine what exactly is the right thing to do.
you can also add to the fact that we are blamed for things whether we do them or not. and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that i don't think our government does any wrong, this is not what i am saying, i am well aware of the things the usa has done.
I agree, Lecia. The US is a convenient scapegoat for authoritarian regimes to point at in an effort to distract their people from the real problem, i.e., the authoritarian regime itself.
Unfortunately, we have been involved in some things historically (and perhaps still today) that negatively impact our credibility. For example, while Iran's complaints that the US interfered with their election process last month are largely unsupportable, the fact that we engineered a regime change and installed the Shah in the past is still very much on the minds of anyone in Iran old enough to remember those days. The Iranian leadership knows this and knows they can water the seed when the internal strife gets acute enough.
Here's a possible connection. I don't know if this Zelaya is related in any way to the president of Honduras, but he played an important role in the torture and disappearances of many Hondurans and non-Hondurans who were viewed as sympathetic to the people's cause, and was trained by the US CIA, probably on a secret base in TX:
"German Perez was detained in the country home of Col. Amilcar Zelaya, former head of the Honduran military police force, Caballero said. The two-story, peach-colored house in Tamara, 10 miles outside Tegucigalpa, is surrounded by mango and orange trees, and can barely be seen from the road.
"Many died there," Caballero said.
Caballero was based on the southern edge of Tegucigalpa, near the Military Industries complex, INDUMIL."
great post, thanks!
I would also urge your to read about the School of the Americas. This US-funded institution (yes siree - paid for with millions of our tax dollars each year) at Fort Benning, GA, is a training ground for many of the worst violators of human rights in Latin America. It sickens me that we squabble over allocating money to send our own kids to college, yet spend millions of tax dollars to create monsters who will subjugate, torture and sometimes kill the people of other countries. Why? Is it some kind of sick obsession with power, or perverse fear of communism? Or, is there really a truly evil side to our country that will always be there no matter who takes power in the White House and Congress?
"In Honduras, five ranking officers who organized--with US complicity--the secret death squad known as Intelligence Battalion 3-15 in the mid-1980s are SOA graduates. They include Generals Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Daniel Ball Castillo, Luis Alonzo Discua and Juan Lopez Grijalva. An America's Watch report has charged Lopez with involvement in a death squad. Captain Pio Flores, whose house was used as a detention and torture center, took four courses at the SOA. Colonel Amilcar Zelaya, from whose residence muffled screams were regularly heard, also attended the school. Battalion commanders Luis Alonzo Villatoro Villeda and Adolfo Diaz took courses at the SOA, as did Lieutenants Segundo Flores Murillo and Noel Corrales. Murrillo's specialty was interrogation and torture."
I agree with your remarks about the School of the Americas.
So, Randy - why do you think there is such resistance to shutting this program down? And why hasn't the press enlightened the public about this horrible training facility?
I think it became "old news" during the Bush administration. Despite the annual protests of 20,000 plus, the media knew that nothing would change after 9-11.
I also know that serveral bills have been introduces in Congress to close the School, but they have gone nowhere.
And then we go and complain about terrorist training camps in Pakistan.
We are such f-g hypocrites...really. This country has strayed so far from where we started, it's sickening.
Maybe Sheryl its because much of what people are protesting about in that school is old news and represents a tiny number of the thousands of graduates. Even most congressmen have figured that out which is why those bills go nowhere.
While those acts were despicable, its like any group of people-some are crap and will be despite or in addition to other associations or training. I've worked with both students and the US instructors of that school, they aren't the monsters some people have portrayed them as. For the students, its the chance to train in one of the few interAmericas schools that the US actually runs. To even get a slot in the school is highly competetive and there are far more requests than available slots.
I served with several of the instructors and known a couple of those for over 20 years since we were young sergeants together back in the US Canal Zone (the school's orginal site at Ft Davis) I also worked with some of the graduates too in their home countries.
I won't tell you the school turns out angels by any means and some trash still manage to graduate but the school is an overall plus. Its currently at Ft Benning GA.
A coup made a bad situation worse. It just isn't done. He needed to be impeached, or put in jail for a crime ... or something that looks "legal".
And new elections were coming anyway.
(or poison him like some unwanted Pope)
:-)
Perhaps a playwrite will be inspired to write another "Evita", Peter...
Zelaya, The Musical.
I nominate Peter to write the play. [Do you do musicals?]
They DID talk about all this on my PBS News Hour. It was confusing, of course. And nobody talking about it said the President should stay. They just argued if a coup was the way you get rid of a President.
(ha ha yes it's my news hour - I watch it so it's all MINE)
I know what you mean. I think of Jim Lehrer like an uncle sometimes.
;-)
Gwen Ifel is my favorite TV star. She is so warm and nice. I like how all the guests on the PBS News get a chance to explain what they mean. I remember in this story one man insisted impeaching was the way to go and another saying the coup was the thing to do. They got all the time they needed to explain themselves.
(and they said the Catholic Church in Honduras has even come out against the President)
Excellent detail. I was one who simply assumed it was another military coup the first day but later found similar info. Sounds like most of the correct blocks were checked BEFORE Zelaya got the boot.
Now maybe our president will continue the intelligent call he made with Iran and leave a friendly nation alone instead of seeming to pick and choose who we interfere with.
Charles,
your intuition was correct. Unfortunately, the pro coup propaganda in the U.S. media got the best of you.
The American media does not believe in democracy, as seen in the routine portrayal of a moral equivalence between the elected government and the coup plotters. The Washington Post is the worst of the pack. For its editorial page, “democracy” is strictly utilitarian; it’s OK when our side wins; otherwise, we will justify vote-rigging or military action by the other side, even whilepretending we support constitutional order.
But what else would you expect from a newspaper that fired its only opinion writerwho was right about Iraq and that has offered to sell its reporters to the highest bidder? Maybe the Honduran military is buying up advertising space in the Post in order to ensure favorable treatment from Fred Hiatt & Co.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005301
Chuck, remember, President Obama may not always be right, but he's never wrong. I see him sticking with the leftists in OAS and the U.N. on Honduras.
So far he's got two democracies in trouble, Georgia and Honduras, and he's not helping either one that I can see.
By the way, what is the correct procedure for battling our the Consitutionality of a law ... the will of the people, the legal system, .... certainly not the Army. How more f-ed up would the US be if the it was the military, not the Supreme Court, that decided the 2000 election?
Bruce - As the article is written, the Supreme Court of Honduras, along with the Congress, did take the action, not the military. There was a several step process in which Zelaya continued to try to get around the Constitutional laws. In the end the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant, again as dictated by the Constitution. Obviously the Chief Justice doesn't show up to carry out the warrant himself, the authorities perform the arrest. The authorities in this case were the military, acting on orders from the Supreme Court and Congress.
Remember that the Congress installed an interim President from amongst their ranks, in exact accordance with the Constitutional plan of succession. The military continues to act as required by the Constitution. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November and I'm not aware of any changes to the process of campaigning. Zelaya was Constitutionally ineligible for reelection, which is why he attempted to subvert the laws so he could be put up for election again. And as did Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, he could have coercively gained reelection given the extreme poverty of the country (I believe around 70% of the people are poverty-stricken), again just as did Hugo Chavez. The Honduran Constitution appears to have been written expressly to protect the people from dictatorial power grabs.
In other words to keep the poor pooir. Attempting to pass a law is not a crime, if the Honduran Constitutions says otherwise then it is a piece of trash. Just arguing against this by waving at Hugo the gorilla is not really an argument. Chavez gets elected democratically even if he does appeal to the poor. Anyway, using a pathological case does not prove a point, it's just guilt by association.