Honduran Crisis


As the ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, headed by plane toward Honduras Sunday evening, huge crowds of his supporters clashed with soldiers and riot police at the airport as the interim government vowed to prevent him from landing. As all of Honduras stood in suspense, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti said he was willing to negotiate with the Organization of American States . . .

I do not know what Micheletti has in mind but it might be this - offer to reinstate Zelaya in exchange for a promise by Zelaya to completely forego his attempt to alter the Honduran Constitution to allow him to run for another term (as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela did and as Alvaro Uribe of Colombia is proposing.) the Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zelaya's attempts unconstitutional but he put forth a "nonbinding" referendum anyway. It was Zelaya's determination to hold the referendum that precipitated the coup that removed him. I speculate that if Zelaya agrees to let that go, he could be reinstated. Elections are currently scheduled for November 29. Zelaya can not run in that election under current Honduran law.

Pro-Zelaya reporting by my friend Al Giordano, who reports Zelaya landing in Nicaragua. Not exactly helping Obama out on this one - Venezuelan planes landing in Nicaragua? Oy.

speaking for me only

< A Dark Symbol | Mediate Launches: When HuffPo Meets Gawker >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    I know next to nothing about Honduras.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    That is an interesting compromise. Not sure that Zelaya will go for it as he has a lot of supporters riled up. In any case Micheletti  better do something because the people are gathering in large numbers, and there have been reports of some protester deaths at the hands of the Military.

    I believe (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    the plane was denied landing rights and was diverted to El Salvador.

    According To Eva (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:53:53 PM EST
    The airplane has been circling above the airport for about 5 minutes. President Zelaya is inside, along with Miguel D'Escoto, Secretary General of the UN General Assembly, Foreign MInister Patricia Rodas.

    The Honduran military has placed military vehicles and forces all along the airport's runway to prevent the airplane from arriving....this is happening right now...the plane is circling trying to figure out how to land....the military is trying to stop it. Thousands of Zelaya supporters are applauding his arrival around the airport.


    Somehow (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:55:11 PM EST
    No offense to Eva, I seriously doubt the UN Secretary General is in the plane with Zelaya.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    Lots of conflicting reports, also it is hard to know as all this is happening in the last hour or so.

    The other report was that the diplomats and UN dignitaries were on a separate plane to el salvador. They would only land in Honduras if Zelaya's plane was allowed to land.


    According to Miami Herald (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    It is true.
    Zelaya and D'Escoto will head directly to Tegucigalpa, while another plane bound for neighboring El Salvador will carry several Latin American president's including Argentina's Cristina Fernández, Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Fernando Lugo from Paraguay, and José Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

    Miami Herald


    Naw (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    That's different. That is the head of the General Assembly who is Nicaraguan.

    Not the Secretary General of the UN.

    To be honest, that pretty much puts the UN out of the game.


    Oh wait (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    she did say the Secretary General of the General Assembly. Strikes me that that is the incorrect title. I want to check.

    It's the President (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    of the General Assembly - link.

    The Secretary-General of the General Assembly is something entirely different and frankly, much more important.

    I do not think the President of the General assembly speaks for the UN at all.


    It gets worse (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    this is who the guy is -

    Father d'Escoto is currently Senior Adviser on Foreign Affairs, with the rank of Minister, to President Daniel Ortega Saavedra, a post which he has held since 2007. He also chairs Nicaragua's National Committee on Water, in which capacity he plays a leading role in efforts to conserve Lake Cocibolca, the largest source of water in Mesoamerica. He is a member of the Sandinista National Council and the Political Commission, the highest governing body of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN).

    He is a member of the Sandinista government.

    the Obama Administration can not touch these people with a ten foot pole. This is being badly mishandled if someone wants the US involved.


    Wow (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    That is interesting. ALready the right wingers have been calling Obama a commie, ironically Obama is the only, or one of the few world leaders who has not called this a coup.

    No wonder.


    This makes it worse (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    The US can not be involved at all now.

    The OAS should be handling this. (none / 0) (#27)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    The US needs to respect their authority and leave it to them.

    Model UN nerd alert! (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    (Not me; I stopped in 8th grade!)

    Question: please explain the (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    significance of Dumbarton Oaks.  

    Secretary General of the UN (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:24:41 PM EST

    Have there been any comments yet... (none / 0) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    ...from any of the Honduran candidates about any of this?  One of them will be elected president in five months, after all.

    I assume that the U.S. (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:00:09 PM EST
    will stay out of it....I hope.....With a Dem President, that should be a given...  

    The OAS does have credibility in calling balls and strikes in Latin America...

    The compromise suggested seems reasonable....No coup, no change of law....

    That's my proposal (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    No one else has made it.

    It sounds pretty reasonable (none / 0) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    Let's hope someone with a little more clout suggests it too. ;)

    Apparently that is the U.S. position: (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    Latest (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:11:13 PM EST
    President Manuel Zelaya is speaking live with Telesur, explaining he was forced to land in Managua, Nicaragua after the Honduran coup government and military forces prevented his arrival by placing human obstacles and vehicles along the airport runway in Tegucigalpa.

    I can't imagine either (none / 0) (#17)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    Manuel Zelaya or Daniel Ortega will be too happy about that.

    I can find nothing (none / 0) (#11)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    in the way of a statement from Mauricio Funes. What is El Salvador's position?

    I imagine (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    El Salvador's position is 'keep me out of it.'

    All OAS Nations (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    except one, which I guess is Honduras, have denounced the coup and are demanding that Zelaya be reinstated as president.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    But who is going to do something about it?

    Um, no one imo.


    100 years we've been thinking about (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    problems like this, but our international institutions have been mostly useless.

    Hey (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    Bush 41 invaded Panama . . .

    heh (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    I think this is a no win situation for us, honestly.

    Exact;ly (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    Offer the good offices of our negotiators or something.

    In the olden days, United Fruit (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:39:46 PM EST
    would send a flotilla, no?

    I Agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    As long as the US is stepping back from this, all is just bluster.

    Trade Blocade (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    Ahead of the OAS' threats, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua were punishing Honduras by blocking trade. They lifted the sanction Thursday, having already caused millions of dollars in losses. Honduran businesses decried having lost some $20 million during the 48-hour blockade.



    what a sign (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    of the poverty in the region. 20 million dollars in trade lost in 2 days. My gawd, what a pittance relatively speaking.

    You've got to figure that the Banana (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    growers have their own security. And as for the other growers. . .

    (Honestly, I don't know what else Honduras does).


    Tourism to Copan. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    Coffee (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    I was thinking of cocaine (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:32:40 PM EST
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:37:09 PM EST
    Joint Task Force-Bravo has that operation all sewn up. Nothing but the best when it comes to drugs.

    I wonder if (none / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:28:08 PM EST
    that operation will also end now that we have declared that we are no longer in the business of destroying poppy fields in the ME?

    It's one of the few decisions I actually have agreed with the admin on thus far.


    geez, these bozos (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    can't even stage a military coup properly!

    the first thing you do is murder the person you're staging the coup against, you don't whisk him off to a foreign country! there can't be two, living, current presidents, it just confuses the people. especially if the coup'd president happens to be particularly popular with the bulk of the population.

    good grief, where did these morons go to "coup school"?

    SOA (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    Why (none / 0) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:33:06 PM EST
    I believe they went to coup school right here in the good ol' US of A.

    Fort Benning Georgia



    Aristide- example of the Thoroughly Modern Coup, (none / 0) (#52)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    as the US ran it: Leader under pressure, rousted from bed in dead of night, in our case using US soldiers, spirited away, in this case on US aircraft; kidnapped andleader flown to location away from the leader's nation and not allowed to return.  

    Now, iirc, Aristide managed to hold onto a cellphone and made many calls saying, among other things, he had no idea where he was being taken, gave some details of the kidnapping. One of the first things the soldiers did with Zelaya was to demand the cell phones. "Step away from the communication devices...."

    Where are those wristwatch cell phones when pols need them?

    Then, the US clucks concernedly about the need for security, peaceful resolution. It proposes neutering the leader, or, in the case of Haiti, recommended a temporary (until elections could be held) new leadership and had their guy in Miami ready from the gitgo.

    No, killing the offending leader, unless in a small plane accident, is such poor optics...very bad PR.  The MCM* can be counted on to paint a very bad image of the removed leftish leader, which is not questioned, if even noticed, by most Americans. The US leadership gets to look as if it's protecting democracy while undermining and manipulating it.

    The Thoroughly Modern Coup.

    *MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media


    if we've learned one thing from this crisis (none / 0) (#44)
    by Turkana on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:22:57 PM EST
    it's that the honduran constitution does need serious amending!

    In what way? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:25:53 PM EST
    the constitution (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Turkana on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:25:18 AM EST
    essentially allows a military coup. it was written in 1982, under duress.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:10:56 PM EST
    But not in this case. Zelaya's actions may have bordered on illegal but the military action was expressly forbidden in their constitution.

    Article 2, which states that sovereignty originates in the people, also includes a provision new to the 1982 constitution that labels the supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power as "crimes of treason against the fatherland." This provision can be considered an added constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian governments.


    In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.

    ''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''

    via digby who hits the nail on the head:

    I think this is a natural outgrowth of the example the US has set over the past few years. People no longer believe that the rule of law is something they must adhere to as long as they can justify their actions as being done to "protect the country."

    no question (none / 0) (#66)
    by Turkana on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    the military arrested zelaya and sent him packing before the congress has acted- it was blatantly illegal, and they've admitted it. and as i posted elsewhere, the head of the military is a graduate of the school of the americas. but this caused me and others to take a closer look at the honduran constitution, and it's a mess. which proves zelaya's point, however self-serving his original intent.

    Not The Point (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    Congress had already voted the referendum illegal, the firing of the general illegal and it is irrelevant that they voted him out of office, via an allegedly forged letter of resignation, some hours after the coup. He did/does not have much support from his government.

    The illegal part of the operation was that the Military cannot remove the President by force of coup, regardless whatever congress and the SC say.

    That is my take anyway.


    and that's my point (none / 0) (#69)
    by Turkana on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    however unpopular zelaya may be, there is a process, which wasn't followed, however messy that process is. litho did a great diary on the honduran constitituon:



    Not So Great Job, IMO (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    Here is a translation, google, of the constitution. The military coup seems entirely illegal to me. I do not speak spanish and skimmed the translation to find the applicable parts, so I am no expert. But the OAS, all of whom speak spanish, have deemed this coup illegal and are demanding the reinstatement of Zelaya.

    As far as the messiness of the constitution, that is for the Honduran people to decide. The constitution have been revised some 15 revisions, or constitutions, since 1825.

    Because there was a military dictatorship there, the constitution explicitly disallows a military coup.


    I was more curious as to (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:13:23 AM EST
    who the "we" were. Unless of course the author is Honduran.

    btw, nice 9th inning comeback by the Monks tonight (no comment on the extra innings)


    An editorial "we"? (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:25:38 AM EST
    Bittersweet. Hairston hits a solo (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:30:27 AM EST
    HR Friday night.  Today he is traded to Oakland.

    WSWS on Honduras and Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by Andreas on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    The WSWS today writes:
    There is evidence that the Obama administration was intimately involved in pre-coup plans to oust Zelaya, The New York Times last week cited an unnamed US official as saying that Llorens and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas A. Shannon, Jr. spoke to "military officials and opposition leaders" in the days before the coup. The official said, "There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that."

    Both Llorens and Shannon were top advisers on Andean affairs to President Bush in the period leading up to and during the US-backed coup that briefly toppled Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in 2002.

    Since the Honduran coup, the Obama administration has refused to take any serious measures against the new regime. It has merely suspended some military contacts, pending the results of its "study" to determine whether a coup actually occurred.

    The US accounts for 70 percent of the country's exports, and remittances from Hondurans in the US comprise 20 percent of the impoverished country's gross national product. Were Washington to impose a trade embargo, the new regime would be forced to back down.

    It is inconceivable that the coup regime would maintain its hard line without tacit backing from Washington. US State Department spokesmen, moreover, publicly urged Zelaya not to attempt to return to Honduras, and the US, through its closest allies in the OAS--Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica and Colombia--defeated provisions in the OAS declaration suspending Honduras that would have required member states to cut off bilateral cooperation with the country.

    Honduran troops kill anti-coup demonstrators at Tegucigalpa airport
    By Barry Grey, 6 July 2009

    Thnx for this link -- I was trying w/ my long ago (none / 0) (#55)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    HS Spanish to translate a similar aticle last night. Much appreciated.

    The country is essentially under martial law, right? Most civil liberties suspended, including habeas corpus, requirement for warrants, etc.--right?


    Why was a coup so necessary w/ Nov prez election (none / 0) (#54)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    Were the oligarchs so concerned that the populace might indicate it wanted a constitutional assembly?

    Zelaya was not running in November; he proposed ways to change the constitution.

    Was one non-binding "poll" on whether to have a referencum that terrifying to the powers that be in Honduras?

    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    That is how Chavez and other leftist regimes have done it. Take it to the people..

    Exactly (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    The people of Hondurous took an extreme step to stop an extreme attempt by their president to become the defacto ruler of Hondurous.

    How do people think Chavez got to where he is and why is his suport of Zeyla not an indictment of him?

    Was the step by the congress and military extreme?  yes.   The real question was how would they have stopped it otherwise?

    Obama should be taking a wait and see attitude and at a minimum not taking either side.   It is really pretty silly to be siding with Chavez in the name of "rule of law".


    Nice Twist (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    But typical of you.

    The people of Hondurous took an extreme step...

    To give you the benefit of the doubt, in case you have not been following the Honduran coup closely The Military took an extreme step, not the people.


    And the Honduran Congress (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    and the Honduran Supreme Court.

    Let's be accurate here please.


    Semantics (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Lets see....

    Congress, Supreme Court and Military on one side.

    Zeleya and Chavez the other.

    Undoubtedly there are supporters of Zeleya but they are in the minority.

    I used the word "extreme" because all things being equal the military shouldn't have acted but since it wasn't my president trying to become the defacto ruler of my country (not even GW tried that) I am giving the military the benifit of the doubt for now.


    The WSJ lays it out pretty clearly (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:13:40 PM EST

    It should be pointed out that Bush and Co. where no different then Obama in their reaction to Chavez.  Cautious diplomacy ruled the day then as well and what we got was Chavez running amuck in the OSA.

    I point that out for those who immediately recoil from the "conservative" viewpoint.

    Sometimes right is just right and support of Zeleya is just wrong.


    The WSJ? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    lol.... And what does limburg and the sheman have to say about it all...

    Don't know (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    Mr. Partisan assumption guy.

    I know what Chavez is saying and am basing most of my assumptions on that.


    Since you won't read the WSJ link (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    how about Slate?

    This is actually an even better (two sided) view of the crisis.

    It blames both Zeleya and the Military's actions.

    Either way Zeleya winds up going and peopele need to stop taking partisan sides and deal with reality.


    Read Both (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Already. I have been following this quite closely.

    The military coup was illegal, and wrong, imo. This should have played out in a less aggressive way. Zelaya is not popular, I have read 30% popularity.

    He would have gone to pasture, the military and I assume the US overreacted.


    Agreed they over reacted (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    but again that's easy to say when you live in a constitutional democracy that can peacefully change hands between a Bush, then Clinton then Bush and Obama.

    The template was there for a Chavez type takeover and the military (with support of the congress and court) took an "extreme step"

    Zeleya was actively defying his constitution and Supreme Court.  How much further would he have gone?

    That's the unkown that we'll never know because of the military's illegal actions.


    Really? (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    Zeleya was actively defying his constitution and Supreme Court.  How much further would he have gone?

    How was he actively defying his constitution. If anything this was an example of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attack on the part of the right wing in Honduras, imo.


    The Honduran Constitution (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    prohibited the type of referendum Zelaya was insisting upon, even after the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled it unconstitutional.

    Zelaya is one of the problems here.

    Indeed, I think there will be no resolution of this if Zelaya insists on running in the election scheduled for November 29.


    Really? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    From what I understand a presidential second term is unconstitutional and that provision is not reversible by any means, including a referendum. Given that I thought that Zelaya was essentially taking a poll that was obviously non binding to see if there was any public opinion favorable to him getting a second term.

    I do not see how that was illegal in itself, although it is rather obvious where he was going with it. That is why it seemed like a preemptive act to me, and not the result of an illegal act by Zelaya.


    I think your searching to defen a position (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:02:57 AM EST
    that's unnecessary.

    We basically agree we're just arguing the fringes.

    IMHO the military reacted illegaly to another illegal action by Zeyela.   You might not thing it illegal but the supreme court of Hondurous and the congress did and endoursed the actions by the military.    Those are the facts.

    So it's now a complicated choice between the lesser of two evils.  The out of control military/supreme/congress or the out of control executive who is the cause of the whole problem.

    It's a choice between to bad choices but Obama should be coming down on the side of the majority and the group who is apparently trying to uphold their constitution and not destroy the democracy by changing it as Zeleya was attempting to do.


    The Honduran Supreme Court (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    said it was. That should have been the end of it. Zelaya acted illegally after that.

    This is pretty clear cut.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    He is obviously not very popular, but evidentially something about what he was doing was so threatening that they could not handle the issue in a measured way according to their own constitution.

    It sounds like Zelaya pissed off those in the SC, Congress, and Military enough to make them act irrational and against the rule of law.

    Obama just announced to the Russians that even though we do not like Zelaya he should not have been ousted as he was a democratically elected leader. OF course it is an empty gesture because we will not cut off funds or order our military to act in any way against the wishes of the new leader, imo.

    Eva has speculated that Hillary will suggest that they have elections now instead of Nov. in order to see what the country wants.

    Of course that would mean that Zelaya is out as he cannot run for another term.


    Can't agree with that (none / 0) (#75)
    by labor nrrd on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    Bush's reaction to Chavez was very different.

    It seems that at the very least, he ignored the coup against the elected Chavez, pretended that he didn't know about it and acted like Chavez had really resigned.  Link

    Chavez is not the second coming, but others also think that right is just right and support of military coups are just wrong.


    This was a non-binding poll; had voters agreed, it (none / 0) (#76)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    meant nothing unless the congress agreed to a constitutional convention (assembly?). Which would take place no earlier than 2010, but the election is November of this year, 2009. Zelaya was not on any ballot for this year.

    Also, once an assembly decided on changes, there were other steps, such as voting to accept them. More time.

    The very earliest Zelaya could consider a second run for office would be 2013, and that seems a stretch.

    Not a referendum

    Unless others here have different information?


    I'd like to read... (none / 0) (#80)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    ...a chronology of the events over the past few months that have lead up to this conflict.

    According to this AP story,

    If he returns, Zelaya faces arrest for 18 alleged criminal acts including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since he took office in 2006.

    That seems like quite a few laws to be stuck in some sort of pocket-veto limbo.  Maybe those ready-to-sign laws are all from this past month.  Or maybe not.  A timeline might at least help determine who's been acting worse for a longer period of time.

    Irony (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    He wanted to come back to face the charges, and his fans, and the military would not let his plane land. Guess they fear the trouble his popularity will cause, more than want to prosecute him for his crimes.

    Relevant Article (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    Article 239 -- No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

    Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

    Emphasis added.  

    Obama and Clinton should support the rule of law and tell Z to find a new line of work.