US revokes visas of 4 Honduran officials

[MechAg94]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NM95O0&show_article=1

OCOTAL, Nicaragua (AP) - The U.S. government said Tuesday it has revoked the diplomatic visas of four Honduran officials, stepping up pressure on coup-installed leaders who insist they can resist international demands to restore the ousted president.

The U.S. State Department did not name the four, but a Honduran official said they included the Supreme Court magistrate who ordered the arrest of ousted President Manuel Zelda and the president of Honduras' Congress.

The State Department is also reviewing the visas of all officials serving under interim President Roberto Micheletti, department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

Micheletti's Deputy Foreign Minister Marta Lorena Alvarado said Supreme Court Justice Tomas Arita and Congressional President Jose Alfredo Saavedro were among those whose visas removed.

Arita signed the order for Zelaya's arrest several days before soldiers whisked him out of the country on June 28.

Alvarado insisted the decision would not have major consequences for Micheletti's government, which has rejected international demands to restore Zelaya despite the suspension of millions of dollars in U.S. and European development aid and the threat of further sanctions.

"It's part of the international community's incomprehension of what is happening in Honduras," Alvarado told The Associated Press. "It's not definitive and it will not have major consequences for the future of Honduras."

Zelaya, who earlier complained that international efforts to restore him were flagging, said the decision was "correct" and urged even tougher measures.

"We should keep insisting that the United States pressure the coup leaders more to give a clear demonstration of repudiation of the coup," Zelaya said from the Nicaraguan town of Ocotal, where he has parked his government-in-exile near the Honduran border, accompanied by hundreds of supporters.

The U.S. decision came on the one-month anniversary of the coup and at a time when international mediation efforts to reinstate Zelaya are deadlocked. The Honduran Supreme Court and Congress have spent a week mulling over a U.S.-backed agreement that would restore Zelaya and give amnesty to the coup leaders.

Kelly said the U.S. Embassy "is urging the Honduran Congress to send a strong signal of support" for the compromise proposed by mediator Oscar Arias, the Costa Rican president. Micheletti has repeatedly rejected any agreement that would return Zelaya, though he has promised to abide by any decision Congress and the Supreme Court make.

Former Honduran Ambassador Roberto Flores told The Associated Press on Monday that his credentials also have been removed. He was appointed by Zelaya but recognized the Micheletti government after the coup.

Flores, who is still in the United States, said he believed Zelaya's ouster was legal because the Supreme Court had ordered his arrest and Congress voted to remove him from office. However, the soldiers flew Zelaya out of the country instead of turning him over for prosecution, in a move that even Honduran military lawyers have said was illegal but necessary.

Zelaya has received support from nearly all foreign governments, which have condemned the coup and isolated the Micheletti government diplomatically.

Four clothing companies who manufacture products in Honduran factories—Nike, Inc., Adidas AG, Gap Inc. and Knights Apparel—released a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling for the "restoration of democracy in Honduras."

The companies said they were "very concerned about the continuation of violence if this "dispute is not resolved immediately." In an e-mail sent to AP, Nike spokeswoman Kate Myers said the company had "no intention of canceling orders with contract factories in Honduras."

In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez clearly bet the interim government could outlast Zelaya until presidential elections scheduled for November. He said Zelaya, whose constitutionally mandated single term ends Jan. 27, might start to lose relevance as campaigning begins.

"There will be a totally different context and once the campaigns begin, the obsession with Mr. Zelaya will start fading," Lopez said.

He expressed a perhaps optimistic view that other nations will recognize the results of the election, scheduled for Nov. 29. Some nations have said they might not recognize a vote held under what they consider an illegitimate government that has cracked down on pro-Zelaya media.

"Of course it will be recognized. There is no sense in talking about it not being recognized," Lopez said.

Honduras' interim leaders have vowed to arrest Zelaya on four charges of violating the constitution if he sets foot in his homeland.

The charges stem from Zelaya ignoring a Supreme Court order and trying to hold a referendum asking Hondurans if they wanted a special assembly to rewrite the constitution. Many people felt he wanted to end the constitutional ban on anyone serving more than one term as president. Zelaya, a wealthy rancher who adopted a left-leaning populist agenda, denied it.

Juan Ramon Cruz, a 45-year-old school teacher who walked for 12 hours through the Honduran mountains to avoid military roadblocks on his way to Ocotal, vowed to stick out the protest, but hoped foreign governments would increase the pressure for a quick solution.

"He is the only president who has given to the poor. This is the crime that Manuel Zelaya has committed," Cruz said.

This story seems to be getting a little nuttier every time I see it.  I really hope they hold out and tell the US to stick it as much as they can. 

It says they have an election scheduled in November.  I wonder if they will insist on reinstating the wannabe dictator after that?

[Standing Wolf]

I'm so proud to see America emptying its bowels on a little South American country that followed its constitution!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think your understanding of events differs greatly from mine

[longeyes]

I thought we were going to avoid "meddling?" 

I guess selective meddling is okay then.  It's grand to see we're in the same camp on this as Castro and Chavez.  Inspiring, truly.

[sanglant]

The obama is simply trying to set precedent, God help us if it works

[De Selby]

Let's see, the new government in Honduras has ordered any media critical of the government closed, and is shooting at demonstrators who favor the ousted president.  Oh yeah, they're really gearing up for a free and fair election.

The biggest punchline to all of this is that Michelleti actively and overtly supported extending the presidential term limit not too long ago for a conservative candidate.  Supposedly those were the grounds for expelling Zelaya from the country.

The scam gets less convincing with each passing moment, and the reality is that the US government's measures are calculated to give the appearance of opposition while avoiding any of the number of substantive measures that could easily reverse the coup.

[makattak]

Let's see, the new government in Honduras has ordered any media critical of the government closed, and is shooting at demonstrators who favor the ousted president.  Oh yeah, they're really gearing up for a free and fair election.

The biggest punchline to all of this is that Michelleti actively and overtly supported extending the presidential term limit not too long ago for a conservative candidate.  Supposedly those were the grounds for expelling Zelaya from the country.

The scam gets less convincing with each passing moment, and the reality is that the US government's measures are calculated to give the appearance of opposition while avoiding any of the number of substantive measures that could easily reverse the coup.

Funny, the "grounds for expelling Zelaya from the country" was not that he supported a change to the constitution. It was that, as president, he was taking action to change the constitution which was specifically forbidden by their constitution.

But I know it's alright because he's a fellow traveler, right?

[MechAg94]

Regardless, they are holding new elections.  As long as they actually abide by the elections, I don't see what the problem is.  It can't be worse that letting the former President strong arm his way into running again. 
Besides, the people in power restricting the media are from the former President's own party.

IMO, the biggest fact of all this is that the supposed "coup" was done legally with both the other branches of govt.  I guess if Clinton had been kicked out in the 90's, that would have been called a coup also.  In the US, impeachment hearings involve the Congress voting to oust the President under the guidance of the Supreme Court.  It seems to me that is essentially what happened in Honduras though with a different procedure.  So what is the practical difference between Impeachment in the US and what happened in Honduras?

[longeyes]

It's a "coup" when it's not a leftist doing the couping. 

Then it's a glorious people's revolution.

Does anyone hear not think we have operatives hard at work in Honduras as we exchange opinions?  There is a good chance that Zelaya gets back into power, one way or another, and I don't think many of us would be surprised if he has help from the North.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Regardless, they are holding new elections.  As long as they actually abide by the elections, I don't see what the problem is.  It can't be worse that letting the former President strong arm his way into running again. 
Besides, the people in power restricting the media are from the former President's own party.

IMO, the biggest fact of all this is that the supposed "coup" was done legally with both the other branches of govt.  I guess if Clinton had been kicked out in the 90's, that would have been called a coup also.  In the US, impeachment hearings involve the Congress voting to oust the President under the guidance of the Supreme Court.  It seems to me that is essentially what happened in Honduras though with a different procedure.  So what is the practical difference between Impeachment in the US and what happened in Honduras?

I think a more interesting question would be, if Clinton had been convicted at his impeachment and yet had refused to leave office, what would we have done?  Our constitution spells out a procedure for removing someone from their office, but what happens if the guy doesn't cooperate?  Would it have been legal and proper to use the military or the police to physically remove him?

[longeyes]

You want a simple answer?  YES.

Is the U.S. military not sworn to abide by the U.S. Constitution?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Four clothing companies who manufacture products in Honduran factories—Nike, Inc., Adidas AG, Gap Inc. and Knights Apparel—released a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling for the "restoration of democracy in Honduras."

We've been there before for similar reasons.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

1907 -- Honduras -- March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro Laguna and Choloma.

1911 -- Honduras -- January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.

1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortez. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.

1919 -- Honduras -- September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.

1924 -- Honduras -- February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.

1925 -- Honduras -- April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.

[Hawkmoon]

The biggest punchline to all of this is that Michelleti actively and overtly supported extending the presidential term limit not too long ago for a conservative candidate.  Supposedly those were the grounds for expelling Zelaya from the country.

Reality check:

Those were NOT the grounds for kicking Zalaya out. Zalaya wanted to hold a referendum to change the constitution. However, the president in Honduras has no authority to do that, and the legislature didn't choose to do so. So Zalaya had his buddy, Chavez, print up the ballots and he (Zalaya) was going to hold the referendum anyway, in defiance of the constitution and the legislature. So the Honduran supreme court ordered the military to arrest him.

This has all been clearly spelled out in numerous reports and articles. Don't know how you could have missed it so badly.

[De Selby]

Reality check:

Those were NOT the grounds for kicking Zalaya out. Zalaya wanted to hold a referendum to change the constitution. However, the president in Honduras has no authority to do that, and the legislature didn't choose to do so. So Zalaya had his buddy, Chavez, print up the ballots and he (Zalaya) was going to hold the referendum anyway, in defiance of the constitution and the legislature. So the Honduran supreme court ordered the military to arrest him.

This has all been clearly spelled out in numerous reports and articles. Don't know how you could have missed it so badly.

Yeah, I guess reading all the spanish language news and American news on it focused me too much on the opposition's argument of "Zelaya wanted to run again!", which is the only offense he's been alleged to have committed. 

Considering that the Honduran constitution does not prohibit reform (only the clauses daling with re-election do that), I'd say it's telling that this is the picture you got from the media on what happened there.

It's a coup when the army, acting on the orders of a corrupt supreme court, expels the elected president supposedly because he wanted to run for a second term, and then installs a guy who himself supported extending the term limit for a conservative president.

[MicroBalrog]

It's a coup when the army, acting on the orders of a corrupt supreme court, expels the elected president supposedly because he wanted to run for a second term, and then installs a guy who himself supported extending the term limit for a conservative president.

Who bribed the Honduran Supreme Court?

[longeyes]

The current admin loves "people's revolutions," unless they are in the Middle East...

[doczinn]

It's a coup when the army, acting on the orders of a corrupt supreme court, expels the elected president supposedly because he wanted to run for a second term, and then installs a guy who himself supported extending the term limit for a conservative president.

Only he wasn't removed from office for wanting to end term limits, but for, as president, acting to end term limits. Someone else might be on the record as fervently supporting the abolition of term limits before he becomes president, but he hasn't violated the Constitution. Zelaya did, and the constitutionally-prescribed action was taken.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story

Honduras' non-coup
Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.

By Miguel A. Estrada
July 10, 2009

Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup."

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.

What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an "opinion survey." The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the "survey" -- and "fired" him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 -- three days before he was ousted -- Zelaya personally gathered a group of "supporters" and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the "survey" on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya's arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the country's army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court's order on the morning of the proposed survey.

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

Miguel A. Estrada is a partner at the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. A native of Honduras, he was a member of the official U.S. delegation to President Zelaya's 2006 inauguration.

[RocketMan]

I'm sure ShootinStudent will be along shortly to tell you that you and the article are wrong, Zinn, and how swell a guy Zelaya really is.

[Stand_watie]

I'm sure ShootinStudent will be along shortly to tell you that you and the article are wrong, Zinn, and how swell a guy Zelaya really is.

and that the Honduran Constitution is also "corrupt".

[Monkeyleg]

Ah, but the strawberries! That's where he had us. We laugh at him and make jokes, but Shootinstudent will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that Michelleti had a duplicate key to the presidential icebox, and he made off with the strawberries!

[De Selby]

Okay, if this is really about upholding the rule of law, why didn't the army arrest/expel Michelleti as well, given that it's quite public that Michelleti is guilty of the crime of supporting extended term limits for the president?

doczinn, it's interesting that you have that take about the "constitutionally prescribed" method of responding.  Not only is the Honduran constitution silent as to the military's authority to expel the president, the military-controlled media have already reported that the military's lawyers acknowledge the lack of any constitutional grounds for an expulsion.  That was just an "oops."

Micro, there is no need to bribe the Honduran supreme court - it is loaded with corrupt officials who regularly issue "legal" opinions for their own interests.  It is, without exaggerating, literally in competition for the title of most corrupt state institution in latin america. 

Yet the orders of that same court are supposed to represent law and order.

What I see here is not technicalities or a "different take" on politics.  Folks are jumping on board with the coup because Zelaya was a leftist, plain and simple.  And jumping on board with misuse of state authority for any purpose is, imho, a recipe for disaster in every case: it turned out to be true with "anti-terror" measures advanced by the right, it turned out to be true with "save the children" measures advanced by the left, and it is already demonstrably true in this particular case. 

The military in Honduras is shooting protesters and banning any media critical of the government, along with intermittently imposing curfews - because an election is coming, and we can't allow freedom to get in the way of a democratic election, can we?

[makattak]

Okay, if this is really about upholding the rule of law, why didn't the army arrest/expel Michelleti as well, given that it's quite public that Michelleti is guilty of the crime of supporting extended term limits for the president? (Point 1)
doczinn, it's interesting that you have that take about the "constitutionally prescribed" method of responding.  Not only is the Honduran constitution silent as to the military's authority to expel the president, the military-controlled media have already reported that the military's lawyers acknowledge the lack of any constitutional grounds for an expulsion.  That was just an "oops." (Point 2)
Micro, there is no need to bribe the Honduran supreme court - it is loaded with corrupt officials who regularly issue "legal" opinions for their own interests.  It is, without exaggerating, literally in competition for the title of most corrupt state institution in latin america. (Point 3)

Yet the orders of that same court are supposed to represent law and order.

What I see here is not technicalities or a "different take" on politics.  Folks are jumping on board with the coup because Zelaya was a leftist, plain and simple.  And jumping on board with misuse of state authority for any purpose is, imho, a recipe for disaster in every case: it turned out to be true with "anti-terror" measures advanced by the right, it turned out to be true with "save the children" measures advanced by the left, and it is already demonstrably true in this particular case.  (Point 4)

The military in Honduras is shooting protesters and banning any media critical of the government, along with intermittently imposing curfews - because an election is coming, and we can't allow freedom to get in the way of a democratic election, can we?

Wow, bravo SinS. Laid out like a perfect politician: you ignored everything your opponent said and continued with your talking points. Well done.

Allow me to illustrate: In (Point 1) you completely ignored the explanation about supporting term limit extension not being a crime but trying to bring them about. Most recently, this was found in:

Only he wasn't removed from office for wanting to end term limits, but for, as president, acting to end term limits. Someone else might be on the record as fervently supporting the abolition of term limits before he becomes president, but he hasn't violated the Constitution. Zelaya did, and the constitutionally-prescribed action was taken.

In (Point 2), you ignored the point that while the expulsion may have been illegal, that is a matter of the punishment, NOT the crime. Again, it seems as if you did not even read the post 2 above yours, where it says:

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

In (Point 3), you ignore the point that it was not simply the Supreme court, but the nearly unanimous legislature (122-6), the Attorney General, the military, AND the Supreme Court that found his action illegal and his arrest warranted.

In (Point 4), you get to the real meat of your argument. You claim our support for this is because he is a leftist. It is quite true that I am glad Honduras kicked this would-be Chavez out of their country. I fully support them for that. However, the facts of the matter indicate that his arrest and deposition were legal and warranted by their constitution- the fact that he was a leftist hungering for power is merely icing on the cake.

I would claim that rather than supporting the rule of law, your arguments indicate you will support the leftists whether or not they are trying to unconstitutionally take power.

[doczinn]

Okay, if this is really about upholding the rule of law, why didn't the army arrest/expel Michelleti as well, given that it's quite public that Michelleti is guilty of the crime of supporting extended term limits for the president?

Pay attention: He didn't do it while holding the office of President.

The constitution does not specifically authorize expulsion from the country, but it does provide that the President shall immediately cease to be president. In the case of Zelaya, who was actively trying to circumvent the Constitution (breaking into an army base to steal and distribute illegal ballots?), the supreme court and the legislature decided they'd better go a little farther. They could have simply jailed him.

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

[MechAg94]

So the Supreme Court is the most corrupt political body in the entire Western Hemisphere, but the former President is completely innocent and honest?  What are you smoking to get that logic straight?

And is that corruption supposed to be some valid reason to put a corrupt President back in power who was legally removed?  Sure, maybe they shouldn't have exiled him, but that doesn't mean he is still President. 

[Monkeyleg]

Sure, maybe they shouldn't have exiled him, but that doesn't mean he is still President.

He had ballots provided to him by Chavez, and was going to have his supporters distribute them. I imagine that a false election might confuse the population and rile things up a bit. Seems like exile was an appropriate way to keep a false election from happening.