Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object

[roo_ster]

"No enemies to the left" must be recalled and understood to fathom the actions of the current administration.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.

The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

[Matthew Carberry]

He should have organized his "revolutionary supporters" on the sly and had Chavez ship him some of those recently purchased 100K rifles.

Didn't he read the manifesto on how such revolutions are supposed to go?

[De Selby]

Kicking out the elected president so that voters cannot decide whether what he did was within the bounds of the Constitution - defending democracy!

I'm going to laugh every time I read a complaint about "activist judges" from someone who supports the coup in Honduras.

I think it bears considering in this situation that the purported "defenders of constitutional democracy" are the Military and establishment Judges of Honduras - not exactly two parties known for their firm commitments to transparency and honest governance. 

[Ron]

Kicking out the elected president so that voters cannot decide whether what he did was within the bounds of the Constitution - defending democracy!

I'm going to laugh every time I read a complaint about "activist judges" from someone who supports the coup in Honduras.

Seems every governmental body in Honduras that had authority on the subject agreed the president was acting illegally.

shootingstudent, would you have supported Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton using the same tactics in defiance of the written law, the opinion of the Supreme Court and most of those in government if one of them were to have attempted a referendum seeking to extend their terms?   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Kicking out the elected president so that voters cannot decide whether what he did was within the bounds of the Constitution - defending democracy!

I'm going to laugh every time I read a complaint about "activist judges" from someone who supports the coup in Honduras.

Who really needs that whole constitution thing anyway, right? 

[Ron]

There has been no coup.

A coup has been averted.

[De Selby]

Who really needs that whole constitution thing anyway, right? 

The question is: Who should decide on what it means?  The elected person here was putting the issue to a vote.

The armed forces and the Supreme Court as defenders of law and order is an idea that can be quickly laughed off the table in Honduras.  Whatever it is they're interested in, it's not preserving the sanctity of the law.

[De Selby]

Seems every governmental body in Honduras that had authority on the subject agreed the president was acting illegally.

shootingstudent, would you have supported Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton using the same tactics in defiance of the written law, the opinion of the Supreme Court and most of those in government if one of them were to have attempted a referendum seeking to extend their terms?   

I would not have supported a military coup against either as a supposed remedy to the problem.  The issue should be settled ultimately by the voters (that would happen through representatives here, which we all have at least some confidence come to power through a transparent vote.)

It's not like the constitution and establishment of Honduras are models of American justice, either.  Iran has a constitution that gives the Supreme Leader the right to undo elections de facto also, but I don't see anyone piping up in support of the Basij for "upholding the rule of law by putting down these extra-legal, un-constitutional protests."  Support for this coup makes a mockery of criticism of Iran, and forces us to accept the preposterous idea that the army and "Judges" of Honduras would sincerely defend the rule of law and the rights of citizens.  That notion right there doesn't even pass the laugh test.

[Ron]

Once again I repeat, no coup took place, it was averted by the congress, the judiciary and their determination was carried out by the military.

The peoples representatives are still in place, the military is still under civilian control and elections as per laid out in their laws will take place in the fall.

The people of Hunderas will be spared the so called democracy of a Chavez wannabee.

[De Selby]

Once again I repeat, no coup took place, it was averted by the congress, the judiciary and their determination was carried out by the military.

The peoples representatives are still in place, the military is still under civilian control and elections as per laid out in their laws will take place in the fall.

The people of Hunderas will be spared the so called democracy of a Chavez wannabee.

Yeah, the Military only kicked out the president with its guns, and it has a history of obeying orders from the "civilian" judiciary, because they're just honest and transparent like that in Honduras.  I mean most Latin American military actions go so right and lead to freedom and democracy, how could anyone believe this could go wrong?

Whether or not this clown was a Chavez wannabe is irrelevant - it's up to the people of Honduras to decide what kind of government they get.  When the military, acting in concert with an unelected and deeply corrupt judiciary, expels the elected leader of the country because he threatened to hold an election on an issue....that is a military coup.

[Ron]

Yeah, the Military only kicked out the president with its guns, and it has a history of obeying orders from the "civilian" judiciary, because they're just honest and transparent like that in Honduras.  I mean most Latin American military actions go so right and lead to freedom and democracy, how could anyone believe this could go wrong?

Whether or not this clown was a Chavez wannabe is irrelevant - it's up to the people of Honduras to decide what kind of government they get.  When the military, acting in concert with an unelected and deeply corrupt judiciary, expels the elected leader of the country because he threatened to hold an election on an issue....that is a military coup.

If it was a pressing issue it should have been addressed in the legislature. Apparently the peoples elected representatives didn't find changing the constitution and keeping the president in office was as important as the president did.

He was attempting a coup by doing an end run around the law, the judiciary and the elected representatives of the people.

The fact the military didn't execute him for attempting a coup shows great progress.

Lex Rex

[Vodka7]

I'm with Ron on this one.  Imagine if Obama said, you know what, that whole amending the constitution thing is gonna take too long, I"m just gonna sent out ballots and see what comes back.  The President doesn't get to decide to do an end-run around the constitution whenever he feels like it--that's not the way it works here, and it's not the way it works in Honduras.

Thankfully the army had the guts to stand up to a wannabe dictator-for-life and cut off another Chavez at the knees.

[grampster]

It really doesn't matter if a person is elected to high office in a good election or not.  If the will of the people that elected him is betrayed by said elected official what then?  Especially if said official attempts to contravene the constitution that he swore to uphold and defend.

If we had a president who was bullying the constitution in violation of it, I'd be hard pressed to criticise the VP, or a Senator, or a member of SCOTUS suddenly walking into the oval office with a gaggle of FBI agents and placing him under arrest and triggering the twenty fifth amendment.

[Balog]

But, but, but, they're corrupt! SS knows the hearts of men, and it's BAD when they uphold their own laws cause they aren't good people.

I notice the motives and purity of the dictator for life aren't a valid part of the discussion, nor is whether or not they were upholding the law. All that matters is how bad nasty and evil the judges and legislature are.

[Ron]

But, but, but, they're corrupt! SS knows the hearts of men, and it's BAD when they uphold their own laws cause they aren't good people.

I notice the motives and purity of the dictator for life aren't a valid part of the discussion, nor is whether or not they were upholding the law. All that matters is how bad nasty and evil the judges and legislature are.

Welcome to bizzaro world.

Obama and Clinton stand with corrupt leaders over the rule of law, no surprise.

[Hawkmoon]

The question is: Who should decide on what it means?  The elected person here was putting the issue to a vote.

The armed forces and the Supreme Court as defenders of law and order is an idea that can be quickly laughed off the table in Honduras.  Whatever it is they're interested in, it's not preserving the sanctity of the law.

And your obvious expertise in Honduran constitutional law and internal affairs stems from ...?

[Azrael256]

The question is: Who should decide on what it means?  The elected person here was putting the issue to a vote.

It is quite clear what it means.  Running for president a second time is a kick-your-ass-out-of-the-country offense.  It was decided at the Honduran constitutional convention, and that very constitution allows anyone but El Presidente to put amendment to a vote.

Read the document, then whine about it.

[makattak]

The question is: Who should decide on what it means?  The elected person here was putting the issue to a vote.

The armed forces and the Supreme Court as defenders of law and order is an idea that can be quickly laughed off the table in Honduras.  Whatever it is they're interested in, it's not preserving the sanctity of the law.

You know what? SinS is right. Let's forget this whole pesky "constitution" thing.

Screw the Supreme Court. We need to just put these issues to a vote.

Oh, and since we're not doing the whole "constitution" thing, I get to decide when, where, and how the vote happens, who counts it and what qualifies as a "win."

Should work well, right?

[Stand_watie]

It is quite clear what it means.  Running for president a second time is a kick-your-ass-out-of-the-country offense.  It was decided at the Honduran constitutional convention, and that very constitution allows anyone but El Presidente to put amendment to a vote.

Read the document, then whine about it.

I believe these are the relevant amendments. Anyone want to translate for me?

http://www.constitution.org/cons/honduras.htm

TITULO VII: DE LA REFORMA Y LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCION

CAPITULO I
DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCION



ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.



ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.






CAPITULO II
DE LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCION



ARTICULO 375.- Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere supuestamente derogada o modificada por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distintos del que ella mismo dispone. En estos casos, todo ciudadano investido o no de autoridad, tiene el deber de colaborar en el mantenimiento o restablecimiento de su afectiva vigencia.


Serán juzgados, según esta misma constitución y las leyes expedidas en conformidad con ella, los responsables de los hechos señalados en la primera parte del párrafo anterior, lo mismo que los principales funcionarios de los gobiernos que se organicen subsecuentemente, si no han contribuido a restablecer inmediatamente el imperio de esta Constitución y a las autoridades constituidas conforme a ella. El Congreso puede decretar con el voto de la mayoría absoluta de sus miembros, la incautación de todo o parte de los bienes de esas mismas personas y de quienes se hayan enriquecido al amparo de la suplantación de la soberanía popular o de la usurpación de los poderes públicos, para resarcir a la República de los perjuicios que se le hayan causado.

[Stand_watie]

O.K., here is the take "countrystudies" has on it

***
http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm

Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.

[De Selby]

And your obvious expertise in Honduran constitutional law and internal affairs stems from ...?

University education in Latin American affairs and law.

But there is no expertise needed to take a short review of the military and courts of Honduras and conclude that they're not working for the law or the people.  The army ousted the president, put tanks in the streets, and started shutting down media outlets.  Are those the hallmarks of defenders of democracy and civil rights?

Note that the issue to be put to the voters here was whether to convene a non-bindingconstitutional convention to re-write the constitution - how is the military taking over the government to prevent that in any sense of the word a "defense of democracy"

Bizzaro world is claiming that defense of democracy means a military coup in response to a non-binding vote on a convention to rewrite the constitution.

Edited to add some links on the "defenders of democracy" in Honduras's courts and military:

http://www.icj.org/news_multi.php3?id_groupe=2&id_mot=413&lang=en

"A high degree of politicisation infringes upon the proper functioning of the Honduran judiciary and legal profession", stated a team of legal experts sent by the International Commission of Jurists' (ICJ) Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) on a fact-finding mission to Honduras.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2003/12/31/Analysis-Honduran-militarys-secrets/UPI-44411072909402/

Former military officers and others that were part of the conglomerate's administration are currently in court. The list of charges includes fraudulent negotiations, swindles and other crimes, which weakened the military syndicate, such as selling assets to a bankrupt company owned by Hung Pacheco.

Additional criminal charges include the diversion of $293,000 issued for the payment of taxes that were never paid, the use of company resources for the personal benefit of the directors, the sale of deliberately undervalued companies, and the purchase of overvalued ones.

[Ron]

University education in Latin American affairs and law.

But there is no expertise needed to take a short review of the military and courts of Honduras and conclude that they're not working for the law or the people.  The army ousted the president, put tanks in the streets, and started shutting down media outlets.  Are those the hallmarks of defenders of democracy and civil rights?

Note that the issue to be put to the voters here was whether to convene a non-bindingconstitutional convention to re-write the constitution - how is the military taking over the government to prevent that in any sense of the word a "defense of democracy"

Bizzaro world is claiming that defense of democracy means a military coup in response to a non-binding vote on a convention to rewrite the constitution.

I've been reading things as they've hit the net and haven't seen anything about tanks or shutting down news outlets.

Everything I have read is that the former president was attempting to pull a Chavez and that he had little to no support from even his own political party.

[De Selby]

I've been reading things as they've hit the net and haven't seen anything about tanks or shutting down news outlets.

Everything I have read is that the former president was attempting to pull a Chavez and that he had little to no support from even his own political party.

If he had no support, why not let the vote prove that?  Further, why fear a constitutional convention when none of the parties or government wants to support the president?  It makes no sense to have a military takeover if the referendum on the convention would not have passed, or would've had no support anyway.

[Ron]

If he had no support, why not let the vote prove that? 
He was violating the law. You don't get to hold popular referendums on whether you have to obey the law.

Further, why fear a constitutional convention when none of the parties or government wants to support the president? 
There is a clear process for initiating a con con as spelled out in their constitution. You don't get to foment upheaval and unrest in order to bypass the law.

It makes no sense to have a military takeover if the referendum on the convention would not have passed, or would've had no support anyway.
It is not a military takeover. The civilian government is calling the shots. The military was following orders.

[De Selby]

Ron,

Okay, let's see here: A corrupt judiciary, acting in concert with a criminal military, says that holding a non-binding vote on whether a convention should be called to reform the constitution violates a part of the constitution that says nothing about non-binding votes, conventions in general, or anything similar.

They then conclude that they need to arrest the president, shut down the media, and put tanks on the street (none of which there is authority to do in the constitution in response to this)....but there's no support.

But that's the law - see, and following the law is democracy? Or what?  I wonder why there wasn't such vociferous support for the law in Iran.  I mean all those protestors going out there without permits to challenge an election whose outcome was constitutionally approved.  It's simply impossible not to see the double standard here, and it's mind-bending to think that anyone would defend the actions of the military of Honduras as honorable defense of democracy.