Honduran court defiant on Zelaya

[Adsos Letter]

Source: BBC

The Supreme Court of Honduras has rejected a demand by the Organization of American States to reinstate the ousted President, Manuel Zelaya.

OAS chief Miguel Insulza was told that the court's position was "irreversible" when he met its president for two hours in the capital Tegulcigalpa.

Mr Insulza, in Honduras on a mission to have Mr Zelaya reinstated, said he had detected no will to bring him back.


The interim government formed after his removal says Mr Zelaya's attempts to change the Honduran constitution, and possibly extend his power, justified the army's actions.

It can now expect diplomatic isolation and likely international sanctions, the BBC's Stephen Gibbs reports from Tegulcigalpa.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8133981.stm

[EFerrari]

1. PR works. Because this isn't true but it keeps being said:

"Mr Zelaya had wanted to hold a referendum that could have removed the current one-term limit on serving as president, paving the way for his possible re-election."

The survey could not have removed the term limit.

Zelaya now not only turned on his class, but he has also made them all look like @ssholes in front of the whole world. They aren't going to let him come back. And Inulza and the US let this spin out too long. He could have gone back on Wednesday, Sunday will be too late, imho.

[The Magistrate]

2. Indeed, Ma'am: The Commonly Retailed Description Is A Lie

The most the referendum would actually have done is established just how popular President Zelaya was with the people of Honduras, and left his oligarchic foes no doubt how isolated they were politically in a real democracy. It is this that had to be prevented....

[EFerrari]

3. I don't see how the gentleman can regain his seat

unless some portion of the military leadership decides in his favor. Even if he is more popular than I believe him to be, you can't be president in Honduras if the military doesn't want you. If the military and the oligarchy don't want you, you better have a Plan B.

[The Magistrate]

4. Unfortunately, Ma'am, We Are In Agreement There....

Confiscation of assets in foreign banks might put sufficient pressure on the oligarchs, but that is not too likely to be done. If the man is going to be returned to office, it will need a popular uprising, and a successful one at that, which is also pretty unlikely.

[AlphaCentauri]

37. Plan B: Cesar Ham for president

or maybe that's another RW fear?

[EFerrari]

48. If the right wing wins this round, I wonder what the chances are of Ham being elected.

They have the anti-Chavez red baiting going high volume as it is.

I guess all right wing candidates in LatAm run against Chavez these days.

[Wabbajack_]

49. The new "President" is in the same liberal party as the ousted one

So how is this a right-wing plot?

[EFerrari]

50. The Liberal party is not a liberal party. And that's why Zelaya

raise ire in that party, he went somewhat to the left of them.

[Judi Lynn]

51. You would find it worth your time starting to keep track of these events, and if necessary,

doing some reading on your own, in order to know something about the subject.

[Wabbajack_]

61. "look it up yourself lazy"

Yeah thanks Judi, not.

[AlphaCentauri]

66. Zelaya raised the minimum wage more than 60%

that made the elitist in his party to start plotting against him. Note that liberals in latin america means republicans or libertarians nothing to do with socialist liberals, it's just like the metric system, inches are not equal to centimeters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Chicago boys to be specific

neo liberals

[Wabbajack_]

79. Well the other main party is called "conservative"

I understand his party is the main "center-left" party in country. Bunch of "Blue dogs" I guess.

[excess_3]

5. would you have believed the results?

BTW, in Mr. Z's private referendum, Mr. Z
would count the votes

edit for typo

[The Magistrate]

6. It Always Amazes Me, Sir

When people imagine the rich are popular among the poor, and that the outcry of the wealthy when made to disgorge a portion of their boodle is the bellow of an outraged populace.

[boppers]

53. You know Zelaya's a rich man, do you not?

A timber and cattle baron?

"When people imagine the rich are popular among the poor", indeed.

What's Obama worth these days?

[The Magistrate]

62. So Was President Roosevelt, Sir. And Your Point Was?

[boppers]

12. It would have established a popular referendum to ignore the constitution, and make a new one.

People who think "populism" is good should study history more.

[JackRiddler]

34. Can you give us a list of Honduran military dictatorships vs. elected "populist" ones?

[The Magistrate]

47. No, Sir, He Cannot: He Has Not Studied Nearly Enough History To Do So....

[boppers]

55. Most dictatorships can provide such populist election results upon request.

In some cases, without even voting.

In other cases, it can be provided by ordering certain, specific, votes, favorable to certain, specific, outcomes.

This is why some countries have made such transparent "voting" schemes illegal and unconstitutional.

[AlphaCentauri]

38. is it that bad?

if the people wants a new constitution.

[boppers]

56. It can be bad.

For example, on September 15th, 2001, could shrub have called for a national referendum, on establishing a different Constitution?

[AlphaCentauri]

65. I don't know why shrub didn't do it

it would be good to know what the people want even after september 2001

A new constitution could establish health, higher education as rights and it would take over election reform and many other issues that are not clear enough in the current constitution.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. The referendum would have done NO such thing. It had no legal binding power.

All it could do is show popular support for a move by Congress to establish a Constitutional assembly. Such a move IS allowed by their Constitution.

Moreover, there would be a final consultation simultaneous to this year's presidential ballot, which means there's no chance Zelaya could have gotten a second term. At, most, the President elected AFTER him would have the chance.

[HotHussy]

17. It's not our couintry, stay out of it

Just like Iran

[The Magistrate]

18. One Naturally, Ma'am, Takes a Sporting Interest In Such Matters

And the U.S. could do, and indeed has done, a lot worse than to intervene decisively in Central America against anti-democratic elements. Being just now somewhat engaged in getting grand-sons to lean their room, the battle cry of 'you messed it up, you clean it up!' is somewhat on my mind....

[HotHussy]

19. Speak for yourself. Interfering in other countries affairs?

No thanks. You need to do the same.

[The Magistrate]

21. Ma'am, We Have Interfered So Long And So Thoroughly There That Appeal To The Principal Must Fail

In any case, my standard is not whether an action is or is not interference, but whether it will benefit or harm my side....

[The Magistrate]

33. The Sight Here Is Hardly a Surprise....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[JackRiddler]

35. Yes - for a start, cut off aid and stop training Hondurans at the SoA...

The US has interfered in Honduras and all over Central America. It's time to make up for that and turn around a long history by opposing, rather than endorsing, the latest military coup. The US needs to join all of the other OAS nations and, in fact, the nations of the world in unequivocally condemning a military coup and calling for the return of the elected president.

[boppers]

58. SoA, and the offensive material used from Viet Nam, for training, is an outdated canard.

..and opposition, or endorsement, of a given "leader" is what created this mess.

We should call for rule of law, not rule of Zelaya, or his opposition.

[EFerrari]

41. 65% of Honduras annual budget comes from us.

You bet we have a stake there.

[Judi Lynn]

46. No small detail! Thanks for making the point. n/t

[boppers]

10. The survey could have justified re-writing the constitution...

Removing the term limit.

[EFerrari]

15. The survey is not the trigger. n/t

[The Magistrate]

16. Any Idea, Sir, How Often They Do That In Honduras?

The average lasts about a dozen years, so no doubt they are well over-due.

Where you get the idea the structures of Honduran government in any way represent the will of the people freely expressed in convention assembled escapes me; perhaps you could elaborate?

[boppers]

23. I am aware, Sir, of how often they modify their basic legal framework.

That doesn't make every attempt to do so legitimate, or illegitimate.

[The Magistrate]

25. No, Sir, It Simply Shows The Shabbiness Of Your Propagandist Chant Of 'Upholding The Constitution'

It means one thing to ears in the United States, where that document is generally regarded as the repository of the people's liberty, and hoary with age and the respect that adheres to a founding document, but that meaning is quite false to the situation in which you are employing it. One of the pug-marks of propaganda is the use of ignorance in the audience to achieve a distortion of meaning favorable to the view of the purveyor of the propaganda. That is what you are engaged in here.

[boppers]

28. Then let me be clear:

Maintaining a stream of constant change in regime and law, with successive populist movements ripping out the existing frameworks, to install a new populist oligarch, and new framework, has not been an effective solution.

I would suggest that they might try something else, and would thank you for making clear to the audience that Honduran constitutions are more transient than US ones.

[The Magistrate]

31. That Has Not Happened, Sir

What has happened is a succession of authoritarian regimes, in some instances masquerading as democratic rule, dedicated to maintaining an essentially hereditary aristocracy and retaining the bulk of the population in a condition of penury and peonage. Attempts to improve the condition of the largest portion of the populace have been met with, and broken by, armed violence, whether overtly carried out by government agency or by private bodies against whom the government does not move. During the period of gun-boat diplomacy, and later in the Cold War, this was generally done with some assistance from the United States. Mores have changed somewhat from the former period, and with the end of the latter, there is no longer a shadow of excuse for the U.S. government to collaborate with and support those in dominant positions in these countries, nor for there to be any disdain shown those attempting to improve the lives of their people by the people of the United States, and certainly not for such disdain to be shown by left and progressive persons.

[boppers]

54. "a succession of authoritarian regimes, in some instances masquerading as democratic"

You are correct Sir, and I might suggest that you investigate Zelaya's credentials in this matter.

[bitchkitty]

40. Damn, you talk purty.

I love it when an erudite man speaks the truth!

[JackRiddler]

36. Okay, and what if an overwhelming majority had been for a new Constitution?

Would you have denied them that?

What was the fear in the non-binding survey? That Zelaya's proposal would pass? Obviously if there was no chance of that they wouldn't have needed to kidnap him and throw him out of the country.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal

July 1, 2009

Behind the Honduran Coup

Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal

By ALBERTO VALLENTE THORENSEN

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

http://counterpunch.com/thorensen07012009.html

[excess_3]

8. hold your own private election

under your own private constitution

.......................................................
yah, everybody believes it is valid
(sarcasm)

[IndianaGreen]

9. The truth here is that the golpistas have suspended civil liberties in Honduras

Something that the Honduran elites, and those DUers that support them, find no fault with.

Despite the best efforts of what I call "the Oligarch Diaspora" to flood the Internet with near identical messages that the Honduran coup "is not a coup" and that was a "constitutional succession" (cough, cough) dressed in the blue-and-white flag of Honduran democracy, the coup regime bared its fangs today. And like any vampire, it's coming out at nightfall.

The same Congress that, after the military had kidnapped, beaten and dumped President Manuel Zelaya in Costa Rica had declared one of its own, Roberto Micheletti as the coup "president" today passed an emergency law stripping Hondurans of the following rights from the country's constitution:

1. The right to protest.

2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest.

3. Freedom of association.

4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest.

5. Freedom of transit in the country.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/honduras-coup...

[excess_3]

11. trust Congress, or one person . pick one .n/t

[IndianaGreen]

14. You are trusting the oligarchs and their institutions

but then, you probably support the members of your class. The Honduran oligarchs are not worth one drop of American blood.

1. According to the constitution, taking Zelaya out of the country was illegal. Period.

2. Zelaya is charged with trying to amend the constitution to allow re-election of the president (which would be illegal), yet no one has ever provided evidence to that effect. It is illegal to amend seven particular parts of the constitution, but the wording of the proposed vote did not mention any of them.

I do not care if you are positive he wanted to, as that does not constitute evidence. He said before the coup that he would leave office in 2010. Maybe he was lying, maybe not. But it deserves more investigation before overthrowing him. Ousting a president requires more than just assumptions about intent.

3. At various times, commenters have mentioned Venezuela as intruding (such as with the plebiscite materials) but I have never seen the Supreme Court or Attorney General mention evidence.* Until I do, I think Venezuela is irrelevant. That Zelaya liked Hugo Chavez is not relevant to his standing as president. That Chavez says ridiculous things about invasion is not relevant to Zelaya's case either.

4. Zelaya was unpopular (even with his own party) and many people in Honduras are glad he's gone. This is irrelevant to the law. Surprisingly, I have not yet seen anyone make an argument for how a parliamentary system might have mediated the situation better--Honduran political institutions are so weak it might not have mattered.

http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-summin...

[boppers]

13. Two wrongs don't make a dictator right. eom

[The Magistrate]

20. Do You Actually Believe This Swill You Chant, Sir?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johan...



"This pretense of not knowing what every idiot knows has come to dominate our national discourse."

[boppers]

22. Yes, Sir, I do.

I believe that there are opportunistic politicians of all stripes, and by taking sides with a man, rather than with law, we risk creating another US-backed Noriega, Pinochet, Marcos, etc.

There is a long history of the US justifying a "side" in a coup/counter-coup, only to have it turn around on us and be a rather horrible thing.

[The Magistrate]

24. Law, Sir, Takes Sides, Generally Against Those With the Least Property

The idea you can demolish recognition that what is occurring in Honduras at present is a classic exercise in counter-revolution on behalf of a clique of wealth using the country's military as their private tool by raising a cry of "Law! Law! Law!" is puerile. As the old song from Harlan County suggests, a man has to pick a side, and stick to it. When I see an army led by men trained in the School of the Americas leveling guns on a crowd of people in shabby dress, I know perfectly well which side I am on....

[boppers]

26. Constant "revolution" has its costs, Sir.

I am not convinced that it has served latin america well, and wonder if maintaining instability might be part of a greater plan in suppression of the people.

That being said, I also do not reply to dog-whistles of the 80's quite like I used to, especially when the constant stream of puppet dictators always claim their mandate in "the name of the people", and especially when the changing of the leadership would have no effect on the overall military, regardless of where they've had supplemental training.

[The Magistrate]

27. Constant Counter-Revolution Certainly has Costs, Sir, In Blood And In Money

The history of political life in that part of the world is the tale of counter-revolution, in most instances pre-emptive, for the best part of at least a century and a half. the degree of economic inequality in those countries simply cannot be sustained by any means save authoritarian rule of considerable brutality, and altering such a social order cannot be achieved without some degree of disregard for law and custom. One either supports a more equitable sharing of the wealth and goods produced by the labor in a society, or one does not.

[boppers]

29. Cheering on one wolf, over another, does not benefit the sheep.

Sadly, a great many people have confused any opposition to evil with being good.

Sometimes, the opposing force to an evil is simply another evil.

[The Magistrate]

32. In This Instance, Sir, Those You Call Sheep Seem To Support One You call a Wolf

Increasing the legal minimum wage, attempting to impose fair labor standards, and seeing to it taxes are actually paid by the wealthy strikes me as a sound program, and if it is carried out by a wolf, then perhaps that is so much the better. No one but a rank sentimentalist imagines far reaching changes in a corrupt and exploitative order can be obtained without violation of some of that order's own rules, which it establishes for its maintenance against the common good. Even when it comes to violence, the distinction is not between violence and oeaceable behavior; rather the distinction is made by examining the goal of the violence, and whether one sympathizes with the goal is the determining factor in one's attitude.

[boppers]

52. He has good sides.

Progressively increasing the minimum wage allows businesses and economies to adjust. Increasing it 60% nearly overnight creates massive unemployment.
Making sure taxes are paid by the wealthy timber and cattle folk (like him) seems sound, as long as a blind eye isn't turned to accounting.

Of course, issuing orders to the media by fiat, changing law by fiat, attempting to control elections by fiat, not so good.

There is also a much shorter way of saying:
"No one but a rank sentimentalist imagines far reaching changes in a corrupt and exploitative order can be obtained without violation of some of that order's own rules, which it establishes for its maintenance against the common good. Even when it comes to violence, the distinction is not between violence and oeaceable behavior; rather the distinction is made by examining the goal of the violence, and whether one sympathizes with the goal is the determining factor in one's attitude."

You might have heard variations of this phrase:
"The end justifies the means."

[The Magistrate]

63. Everyone Agrees The End Justifies The Means, Sir, Providing They Actually Desire The End In Question

You yourself are arguing here that the end you prefer justifies the means resorted to to achieve it. Where we differ is in characterization of the event, and that is also where you are sadly mistaken. You characterize this as the ouster of a foul dictator by persons concerned with restoring democratic rule, when in fact it is an exercise in counter-revolution concerned to protect the privileges of a corrupt and anti-democratic oligarchy.

[AlphaCentauri]

42. what has been done in Honduras is private selection

a selection of a president, a selection by the army, congress and the supreme court, how many hondurans voted for micheletti to be president?

[Zorro]

30. Unfortunately Alberto Vallente Thorenson's interpretation of Honduran law doesn't matter

The Honduran Supreme Court's opinion is the one that does.

And they ruled Zelaya's attempt to hold the vote illegal and unconstitutional.

Just sayin'.

[JackRiddler]

39. If so, why didn't they initiate a legal removal?

How would this justify a military coup?

The only justification a military coup ever has is its own power, i.e. whoever has the guns is legitimate. Some legal precedent that is.

[Zorro]

44. Is this a military coup?

From what I read, it is a civilian who replaced Zelaya as president, not a general. I don't think it qualifies as a "military coup".

It seems to me that Zelaya manufactured this crisis by ignoring the ruling of the Honduran Supreme Court that declared the impending vote to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Do you think it's OK for a president to defy a supreme court ruling?

Had the referendum been conducted, what would that say about Zelaya's respect for the nascent democratic institutions in Honduras?

[The Magistrate]

45. Yes, Sir, It Is a Military Coup

Interesting 'hobby' you claim in your profile, by the way....

"Educating pro-FARC, pro-Chavez, pro-Castro bullies"

[SuperTrouper]

71. it indeed was a military coup just the same as our coup in Afghanistan and Iraq

to get rid of the "devils" Talibans and Saddam Hussein. However, this was a coup supported and ordered by the Nation's (Honduras) Supreme Court and the Attorney General with the blessing of the National Congress to get rid of the vile Zelaya; this type of coup has never occurred...in Latin America the coups are usually by the military to get rid of the Constitution and bypass Constitutional succession and to put itself in power, for example Hugo Chavez. Honduras coup is atypical and that is why the OAS and the UN are struggling to get a handle on the situation. Today Hugo Chavez accused us (the USA) of plotting this coup; however, he did not blame Obama because he feels Obama is somewhat neutered and is a prisoner of the imperial Forces of the USA and our "wicked" military system. The bottom line: Manuel Zelaya will never return to Honduras as President, Micheletti will call for early elections in 60 days instead of November 29, 2009. The have a slogan now in Honduras: "We'd rather live with 6 months of pressure (presión) than 20 years of repression (represión). It ius over, Nicaragua and Venezuela will have to watch their backs because this Constitutional coup may give impetus to the pillars of justice in those countries to overthrow both Chavez and Ortega. Evo Morales in Bolivia is in his last legs and Christina Fernandez Kirchner is losing support by the minute and in Paraguay, Fernando Lugo is in trouble. The only stable leader for now seems to be Correa of Ecuador because he is putting distance between himself and Chavez.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. Amazing. This poster probably thinks pro-Pinochet, pro-Stroessner, pro-Somoza people are not bullies

and don't need to be educated because they are just a-OK.

The Honduran golpistas are cut from the same cloth.

[Zorro]

75. Well Commie

Since you probably support the policies of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Il, it doesn't actually establish you as a superior moral authority.

See, I can play your game, too, if that's where you want to go.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

57. Define military coup?

Some here would classify any involvement of any police force as a military coup, as they are unfamiliar with blended police/military states.

Perhaps if the Supreme Court had sent in their law clerks, with tasers?

Or maybe their Congress could have sent in wave-after-wave of congressional pages, armed with nasty... papers expressing their positions?

edit: typo

[EFerrari]

59. You demolish your own premise. In a democracy, there should be no need

to "send in" waves of any force because the rule of law is respected by the actors.

In Honduras, the civilian golpilstas are somewhat in charge of the cities. The military is in control of everything else and even those areas under civilian control rely on the force of arms for order.

Yes, it was a military coup.

[boppers]

60. Oh, there are no criminals in a democracy?

"the rule of law is respected by the actors"?!?!!

Wow, totally remind me to not apply that philosophy... anywhere.

"Don't worry, everybody, the people who commit crimes will just turn themselves in! They respect law!"

[EFerrari]

67. You are confusing policing with militarization. Like, totally. n/t

[The Magistrate]

64. 'Blended Police/Military States', Sir? That Is Pretty Rich....

Translated into English, it would seem to mean 'a police state where the police and military do little unless and until democratic processes issue in policies the police and military leaders do not much like'....

[boppers]

68. Sir, you have hit the nail on the head.

You sound quite familiar with the problem of how many SOuth American states manage their different armed entities.

[The Magistrate]

70. If You Know That, Sir

Why are you engaged in making noises as if the coup in Honduras was some exercise in upholding law and constitutional principle? On your own evident undserstanding, you should be denouncing it for what it is, a typical exercise in protecting the privilges of a wealthy oligarchy against the threat of their peons having a better life....

[boppers]

72. Because, Sir, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Zelaya is bad.
Both coup efforts are bad.

I have nobody to cheer on, and would rather cheer law and order on, because the forces of law and order seems the least of the evils in play.

[The Magistrate]

76. Are You Suggesting, Sir, That Bad Intentions Pave The Road To Heaven?

The people who though this coup do not have the slightest interest in 'law and order', save that it continue to be their license for exploiting the country for their private gain, and their weapon in breaking efforts of the people to improve their own lot....

[AlphaCentauri]

43. Unfortunately elections and democracy won't matter anyway

the ruling class is all it matters