The National Resistance IS Post-Coup Honduras! Arnold August on the Before and After

[Downwinder]

http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/the-national-resistance-is-post-coup-honduras-arnold-august-on-the-before-and-after/

[Judi Lynn]

1. Great writing. Thank you, Downwinder, and thanks to magbana. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

2. If a Constitution produces two stolen elections, a Dick Cheney, a George Bush,

an Iraq War, torture and other lawlessness, and national bankruptcy, and turns your nation into a "banana republic,' isn't it time to change your Constitution?

I love this point of the article. Constitutions do not = the rule of law. If they can be so freely violated, and produce such harm and horror, something is very wrong. The power balance in the country has been thrown so out of whack, under the existing rules, that a whole new national political discussion needs to take place, and new fundamental law devised and agreed upon, to try, once again, to prevent the nation coming to harm, and to guarantee "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and the common welfare.

Honduras' ills are different, but the principle is the same: If the military can shoot up the president's house, kidnap him at gunpoint and force him into exile, declare martial law, end press freedom, start using live ammunition on anyone who protests, beat people up, kill people, hold thousands of political prisoners, and call all this "constitutional," and if the society develops one of the worst rich/poor ratios in the western hemisphere, with a vast poor majority lorded over by ten rich families, who are supported by a foreign power and its military, and the rich call this "constitutional," something is wrong with the constitution.

Or, I would say, in any case, a discussion of the "law of the land" by the people who must agree to live under this fundamental law, is in order. Maybe the constitution needs to be rewritten. Maybe something else needs to be done. But putting the constitution on the agenda, as the first order of business, is a step in the right direction.

The US Constitution explicitly and purposely gives the power to declare war to Congress--the most representative branch of government--and only to Congress. The President cannot wage a war without a declaration of war by Congress--cannot recruit and deploy soldiers, cannot order them to kill people in a foreign land, cannot order weapons and other materials to be manufactured, cannot spend taxpayers' money for the war, without such a declaration, according to the US Constitution. The purpose of this provision of the Constitution was to prompt a widespread discussion among the people of the US on whether or not a war is warranted. Yet the US has engaged in four major wars over the last forty years, and several lesser wars, without any such declaration.

And the discussion of wars proposed by the President has consequently been the exact opposite of what the Founders intended: full of demagoguery, propaganda and brainwashing. And when the people were not convinced, even then--as was the case with the Iraq War (nearly 60% opposed, all polls, Feb '03)--the President went ahead with it anyway, again without a declaration of war. And in that case, requiring a declaration of war (adhering to the Constitution) was what was specifically needed to stop an unjust, unnecessary, horrendously violent and hugely expensive war that, in addition to all this, destroyed our country's reputation in the world. Requiring a declaration of war would have stopped it--for it was only a matter of weeks before the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq would declare that there were no "weapons of mass discussion" in Iraq, which would have undercut the Puke and Democratic warmongers in the Senate, and would have exposed the President as a liar.

What actually happened in that case was the Congress gave away its power to declare war to the President--an egregious violation of the Constitution, and an act of Treason, for which they all should have been impeached. The national political establishment, which had become controlled by corporate war profiteers, had gone rogue. And this parallel to Honduras is exact. That is exactly what happened in Honduras. The national political establishment went rogue, and began making up their own laws, without the consultation or consent of the people.

It may be that no Constitution--a written "law of the land"--can prevent tyrants and powermongers from gaining power and then becoming lawless. But the process of discussing the fundamental "law of the land"--the basic law that the people agree to--can be an act of renewal of the commitment of all parties to abide by the commonly agreed upon rules. This has actually been the time-honored tradition in much of Latin America, where constitutions are frequently re-written. The US is long overdue for such a process, but our problems are so acute that it seems almost impossible here, although, if anybody had asked me, ten years ago, what Latin America would look like today, I certainly would not have predicted this vast leftist democracy movement that has swept South America and half of Central America. So anything is possible. Maybe Honduras--that most downtrodden of countries, which has long felt the boot of US war profiteers, and for which the term "banana republic" was invented in the US--will be the spark, will at long last inspire us to restore democracy in the US.

The recent Report of the Zelaya government-in-exile contains a quote by a top coup general, who said that, by this coup, they had "prevented communism from Venezuela reaching the United States." Interesting comment, no? Translate it to reality--what is actually happening in Latin America--and it becomes true: By this coup they have sought to "prevent DEMOCRACY from LATIN AMERICA reaching the United States." Maybe the pressure "from the South" TOWARD democracy will at long last reach these shores, with the people of Honduras giving it the final push.