Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object

[Ron]

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. 

The only honest man in this is (former) El Presidente, eh?

The only one defying the law of the land and the sovereign government of Honduras as far as I can tell is Chavez's buddy, the former president.

I rarely watch TV, surfing the net I'm not seeing any articles on the web about tanks and shutting down the news media.

[De Selby]

The only honest man in this is (former) El Presidente, eh?

The only one defying the law of the land and the sovereign government of Honduras as far as I can tell is Chavez's buddy, the former president.

I rarely watch TV, surfing the net I'm not seeing any articles on the web about tanks and shutting down the news media.

Who says he's honest?  That's up to the voters, and I see no good reason why they should be prevented by force from being able to vote on this issue. 

[Uncle Bubba]

Who says he's honest?  That's up to the voters, and I see no good reason why they should be prevented by force from being able to vote on this issue.

If you can't see it it's because you don't want to. "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..."

Twice now you've stated that the Honduran military has put tanks in the streets and shut down the media. Ron has said both times that he has seen no mention of this in the press. Checking several news sources, the only mention I found was in two sources (Breitbart and CNN) who said "armored vehicles" were stationed outside the presidential palace. Without knowing what type of armored vehicles are deployed, and not finding any mention of any vehicle of the sort being anywhere but in or near the palace, I have to say that hardly constitutes "tanks in the streets". I found one mention (Reuters) of two "national television stations" being taken off the air and a third saying that its "...content has been limited by authorities...". Several foreign and domestic journalists and reporters have been briefly detained but were released upon presentation of valid documentation of their identities and status. That, again, I should think hardly constitutes "shut[ting] down the media". Telesur, for one, has had wall-to-wall coverage of events in Honduras, albeit all in support of the ousted President.

[De Selby]

If you can't see it it's because you don't want to. "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..."

Twice now you've stated that the Honduran military has put tanks in the streets and shut down the media. Ron has said both times that he has seen no mention of this in the press. Checking several news sources, the only mention I found was in two sources (Breitbart and CNN) who said "armored vehicles" were stationed outside the presidential palace. Without knowing what type of armored vehicles are deployed, and not finding any mention of any vehicle of the sort being anywhere but in or near the palace, I have to say that hardly constitutes "tanks in the streets". I found one mention (Reuters) of two "national television stations" being taken off the air and a third saying that its "...content has been limited by authorities...". Several foreign and domestic journalists and reporters have been briefly detained but were released upon presentation of valid documentation of their identities and status. That, again, I should think hardly constitutes "shut[ting] down the media". Telesur, for one, has had wall-to-wall coverage of events in Honduras, albeit all in support of the ousted President.

First hit on google news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29399379

TEGUCIGALPA, June 29 (Reuters) - Honduras has shut down television and radio stations since an army coup over the weekend, in a media blackout than has drawn condemnation from an international press freedom group.

[seeker_two]

....meanwhile, in Washington DC, Obama & Pelosi scribble notes at a furious pace.....


Rule of Law just doesn't mean as much as it used to, to either side..... 

[slugcatcher]

Hmmmm. A marxist, Chavez wannabe fails at subverting the legislature, the law, and the supreme court by trying to become dictator for life. He then storms a military base with his supporters and steals the ballots printed up by Venezuela to hand them out to anyone who wants them. Now where does any of this sound like a reasonable idea? I do disagree on him being kicked out of the country. He should be on trial. Let me go find some sympathy for him. I'll try not to post back in this thread unless I find some.

[grampster]

What all of you forget is....this is Honduras.  But of course we in America must Change.  Take a good look, fellow campers.  Finally we have an answer to what Obama means by change. :rolleyes:

[Scout26]

I'll have some of whatever SinS is drinking !!!

[Uncle Bubba]

First hit on google news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29399379

That's a nifty dance step. Did you take lessons at Arthur Murray?

"No enemies to the Left", indeed.

[Ron]

That's a nifty dance step. Did you take lessons at Arthur Murray?

"No enemies to the Left", indeed.

Did you notice after all the breathless hyperbole the article adds at the end almost as an afterthought:

The Supreme Court, which last week overruled Zelaya's attempt to fire the armed forces chief, said it had told the army to remove the president.

[Uncle Bubba]

Did you notice after all the breathless hyperbole the article adds at the end almost as an afterthought:

The Supreme Court, which last week overruled Zelaya's attempt to fire the armed forces chief, said it had told the army to remove the president.

I've noticed the like in most coverage of the event. Calling it a coup until near or at the very end of the report, then stick in the tidbit of info that shows it's not a coup.

[MechAg94]

Regardless of all the BS, it seems to me they limited the President to one term precisely to prevent the creation of another President for Life from coming in and wiping out the Constitution.  It wouldn't be the first time a Constitution was set up to prevent concentration of power in a single Executive. 

As "coup" attempts go, this one is remarkably law abiding.  When 2 branches of government overrule and block the assumption of power by a 3rd branch of government, it is even hard to call it a coup.  I guess we'll see what kind of "coup" this is if and when new elections are held.

[De Selby]

Regardless of all the BS, it seems to me they limited the President to one term precisely to prevent the creation of another President for Life from coming in and wiping out the Constitution.  It wouldn't be the first time a Constitution was set up to prevent concentration of power in a single Executive. 

As "coup" attempts go, this one is remarkably law abiding.  When 2 branches of government overrule and block the assumption of power by a 3rd branch of government, it is even hard to call it a coup.  I guess we'll see what kind of "coup" this is if and when new elections are held.

Okay, but when the branch behind it is unelected and deeply corrupt, that should probably change your evaluation a bit.   Whatever it is, this is not "defending democracy."

If this is a "law abiding" coup, where in the constitution or laws of Honduras does the military have the authority to arrest and expel the President, or the Supreme Court to order such an act?

[Uncle Bubba]

...where in the constitution or laws of Honduras does the military have the authority to arrest and expel the President, or the Supreme Court to order such an act?

I've been wondering that myself.

[roo_ster]

Okay, but when the branch behind it is unelected and deeply corrupt, that should probably change your evaluation a bit.   Whatever it is, this is not "defending democracy."

For the sake of this post, let us assume the judiciary is corrupt without requiring evidence.  Well, the president is also corrupt, or at least seeking to corrupt their constitution. 

So, we have a corrupt judiciary (made of multiple members) that is appointed/unelected and a single corrupt president that was elected. 

I guess that might be a sort of Mexican Honduran Standoff, legitimacy-wise.

But, the elected legislature (to include the corrupt president's party) comes down on the side of the judiciary.  If one is using the elected nature of the president to inflate his legitimacy, that legitimacy ought also be conferred upon other elected officials.

If this is a "law abiding" coup, where in the constitution or laws of Honduras does the military have the authority to arrest and expel the President, or the Supreme Court to order such an act?

That is the rub: the Honduran constitution's lack of specified procedures to remove a president from office. 

There is the verbiage declaring the president dis-empowered when he tries to alter the constitution and there is verbiage calling on all Hondurans in & out of gov't to restore the constitutional order. 

The military, in this instance, does not seem to be the instigator or even opportunist, given that they refused illegal orders and resigned when their top dog was sacked.  The military had to have its boys re-instated and then was urged by the two other branches of gov't to go after the president.

Seems like the Hondurans in the judiciary, legislature, and military did the best they could to stay within the constitution.  They had the dis-empowered, criminal (busting into gov't installations likely being illegal) president in custody and presented him with the option of resigning or staying in the pokey and facing trial as the dis-empowered Honduran president.


Given all the above, I am not naive WRT the corruption of institutions.  Daniel Ortega did an effective job of corrupting the Nicaraguan judiciary to his advantage

[roo_ster]

As "coup" attempts go, this one is remarkably law abiding.  When 2 branches of government overrule and block the assumption of power by a 3rd branch of government, it is even hard to call it a coup.  I guess we'll see what kind of "coup" this is if and when new elections are held.

I would say it is closer to say that 2.5/3 branches of gov't opposed el presidente, since the military is part of the executive.


Eugene Volokh's  site (http://volokh.com) had quite a bit of discussion about this matter.  Some very interesting discussion on various posts.

What was interesting was that the Honduran constitution specifically dis-empowers any president who takes action to amend the constitution as it pertains to the term limits of the executive.  Not only that, their constitution requires that Hondurans, whether or not they hold an official gov't position, must get things in constitutional order again.  (Honduras really, really doesn't want to be yet another Latin American strongman dictatorship, if one takes their constitution at face value.)

It seems that where the Honduran constitution is lacking is the specific means of removing the president from power.  [Here in America the COTUS defines impeachment & trial procedures to remove a POTUS.  Note, the POTUS can be arrested for committing crimes just like any citizen, but usually is not due to the Praetorian Guard Secret Service bodyguards.]

So, Honduras had a president that, according to the Honduran constitution, was in the process of acts that automatically stripped him of his authority...and that the legislature had ruled mentally incapable.  As such, I suspect that he could be arrested like any common Honduran.  The military at first, like we teach them at School of the Americas whatever we call SoA these days, refused to execute an illegal order.  Then (IIRC), the the military chief was sacked by the president and the rest of the .mil chiefs resigned so as not to have to execute the order, they were ordered re-instated by the judiciary, and ordered by the judiciary to arrest el presidente en flagrente. 

[Note: just refusing to obey the president's order and being fired/resigning is effectively equivalent to going along with his scheme, as some officer-if you fire enough-will eventually go along with the president.]

The legislature prevailed upon the president to resign and then tossed his ass out the country.

I think that the place where things become slippery as to military/judiciary/legislature action is where the president is in military custody and the legislature is leaning on him to resign, due to lack of specified means.  El presidente was constitutionally dis-empowered and declared mentally incompetent, but no specified means to give him the boot from office.  Thus, the pressure to resign. 

Who wants to bet that the legislature will waste no time amending the Honduran constitution to include specific provisions for removing a president in such circumstances?

[roo_ster]

Some interesting volokh.com comments to the question, "Is it a coup?"

http://volokh.com/posts/1246284495.shtml#608382
http://volokh.com/posts/1246284495.shtml#608254

It appears to me that under articles 4, 239 and 375, the army was collaborating as citizens to perform a constitutional duty.

If the army has only removed Zelaya from office (their constitutional duty), and not attempted to otherwise seize control of the country, then calling it a coup strains notions of such.

Overall, those articles strike me as codified Ataturk.

This case pretty clearly demonstrates the difference between a democracy and a republic.

In terms of a democracy, this was a coup by the military.

In terms of a republic, it was a failed coup by Zelaya.

The question is whether the most recent elections or the constitution (amendable by elections) is the basis for the law of the land.

And, this fellow, with the suspicious handle had another interesting comment:

This is why wanna-be dictators usually attempt to establish popularly-based "revolutionary forces" (typically by buying them with bread and subsidies) to balance the power of the Army prior to setting aside the Constitution for their own benefit.

Zelaya moved too early either because he was running out of term or thought his popular appeal was greater than it was and he'd get spontaneous support from the masses. In any event, the Courts and Army took the initiative and forestalled his play.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Okay, but when the branch behind it is unelected and deeply corrupt, that should probably change your evaluation a bit.   Whatever it is, this is not "defending democracy."

If this is a "law abiding" coup, where in the constitution or laws of Honduras does the military have the authority to arrest and expel the President, or the Supreme Court to order such an act?

Ad hominem.  Even if you assume the legislature and judiciary are corrupt on other matters, you cannot deny that their actions in this matter have been entirely proper to protect the integrity of their constitution and their democracy.

[Uncle Bubba]

Thanks, jfr and HTG.I wonder no more.

[makattak]

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. 

Funny, I don't think anyone is defending democracy. Democracy sucks. (Or, to put it more eloquently, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.)

People are defending RULE OF LAW and CONSTITUTIONALISM. Under a constitution, you don't get to just decide to change the rules- you have to follow the process laid out in the constitution.

Of course, so long as leftist megalomaniacs are attempting to install themselves permanently in power, it's ok to ignore the constitution, right?

[Uncle Bubba]

Funny, I don't think anyone is defending democracy.

shootinstudent and his ilk are. How else to account for their call of "What's wrong with letting the people vote and decide the matter?", even though the law clearly states how the matter must be handled, and the ex-Presidente violated that law?

[De Selby]

shootinstudent and his ilk are. How else to account for their call of "What's wrong with letting the people vote and decide the matter?", even though the law clearly states how the matter must be handled, and the ex-Presidente violated that law?

No, the problem here is that the law does not clearly state that having a referendum on the constitution is illegal.

Everyone is stuck on the term limits - let's get clear that term limits were not proposed to be up for discussion in the referendum.

The ballots were for a vote on a non-binding recommendation to form a convention on the constitution, to consider any issues in the future.

That makes the army and supreme court coup even less tenable; there isn't anything in the constitution that says you can't have a vote on whether there should be constitutional reform. 

[De Selby]

Funny, I don't think anyone is defending democracy. Democracy sucks. (Or, to put it more eloquently, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.)

People are defending RULE OF LAW and CONSTITUTIONALISM. Under a constitution, you don't get to just decide to change the rules- you have to follow the process laid out in the constitution.

Of course, so long as leftist megalomaniacs are attempting to install themselves permanently in power, it's ok to ignore the constitution, right?

Yeah, and in this case, the constitution says nothing about what was proposed by Zelaya, and says less about the coup carried out by the military.

So who is in the best position to decide that matter?

[makattak]

No, the problem here is that the law does not clearly state that having a referendum on the constitution is illegal.

Everyone is stuck on the term limits - let's get clear that term limits were not proposed to be up for discussion in the referendum.

The ballots were for a vote on a non-binding recommendation to form a convention on the constitution, to consider any issues in the future.

That makes the army and supreme court coup even less tenable; there isn't anything in the constitution that says you can't have a vote on whether there should be constitutional reform. 

Huh:

Last week Zelaya fired the armed forces chief for refusing to help him organise today’s unoffical referendum on allowing presidents to serve more than one term. The Supreme Court then warned Zelaya to re-instate him, which Zelaya said amounted to a coup against him.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/28/honduran-referendum-turns-into-coup/

Any more misinformation you wish to spread?

[De Selby]

Huh:
 

http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/28/honduran-referendum-turns-into-coup/

Any more misinformation you wish to spread?

Yeah, the article you posted is misinformation - the referendum was on a constitutional convention, not on term limits or any other subject specific matter.

Note: Spanish language coverage is generally more detailed as to the nature of the issue:  http://lta.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idLTASIE55N06G20090624