Honduras Military Kicks Out President

Reuters

Quote:

---

Sunday's coup was the first successful military ouster of a president in Central America since the Cold War era.

An opposition deputy said Congress would chose Roberto Micheletti, the head of Congress, as acting president later on Sunday, and Honduras' top electoral court said a presidential election would be held as planned on November 29.

The Supreme Court, which last week came out against Zelaya and ordered him to reinstate fired military chief Vasquez, said on Sunday it had told the army to remove the president.

"It acted to defend the rule of law," the court said in a statement read on Honduran radio.

---

Associated Press.

So, what should we make of this? On the one hand, it's a troubling return to the military coups of old in Central America.

On the other hand, the country's supreme court said it ordered the army to kick him out because of his plans for an unofficial vote. And it seems most of the rest of the government branches were against him (ie their congress).

CR

I don't get it. When military forces do a coup, OMGZ! TEH MILITARZ! THOSE DEMOCRACY HATERZ! while some countries do a self coup to stay undefinited time in power, aka Chavism.

I think the referendum was about if he could be reelected indefinitely. Which is a thing I heard in other country, but I do not remember. Maybe JAG knows.

Im not sure whether this is good or bad...

Some other members of goverment in the country seem to think its a good thing... which leads me to believe it was done for the best interests of the democracy... but then the concerned statements from the US lead me to believe that it might not be such a good thing...

The US certainly isn't allied to the regime so if thier worried about him being ousted then im guessing something is wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

I don't get it. When military forces do a coup, OMGZ! TEH MILITARZ! THOSE DEMOCRACY HATERZ! while some countries do a self coup to stay undefinited time in power, aka Chavism.

I think the referendum was about if he could be reelected indefinitely. Which is a thing I heard in other country, but I do not remember. Maybe JAG knows.

---

What the hell are you talking about? :inquisitive:

Obama says he is "concerned", but doesn't seem to want to actually do anything. Hillary has condemned the coup and Chavez is threatening military action.

Well, he shouldn't have tried to make a bid for unlimited reelections, but that's no reason for a full-blown coup. If Congress et al was that opposed to him they could have defeated him legally.

Edit: gotta love the picture in the article: one hoorah go-getter stopping the press from crossing the line, and about five other guys sticking in the background, making sure their face doesn't get photographed too... I think we know who the rookie was in this picture.

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.

---

But then the military branch announced its own President. That to me does not sound even close to an arrest - that to me sounds like a coup from within the government.

You may not like the source, but you'll just have to deal with that. If these things are true then I don't see how someone could support this coup:

Months ago, Zelaya proposed that on June 28, a national referendum be held to present Hondurans with the question as to whether, during the November 29 national elections, Hondurans could vote on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution.

The current constitution was written in 1982 in the middle of the repression and state terrorism that blanketed Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s. Honduras was controlled by a US-backed military regime; the US had 14 military bases in Honduras.

The Honduran Armed Forces initially pledged to support Zelaya and provide logistical support for the June 28 poll, to be administered by the National Statistics Institute.

Then, on June 23, the Honduran army told the president they would not support the referendum. The president fired the head of the armed forces, General Romeo Vasquez, and the defence minister resigned.

Fearing for the president’s safety, thousands of Hondurans surrounded the presidential palace.

The National Congress is strongly opposed to the referendum, and today met to draft a letter of resignation for Zelaya. The Congress has also called on the OAS to withdraw its elections observers for the referendum, and has entertained initiatives to block their entry to the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You may not like the source, but you'll just have to deal with that. If these things are true then I don't see how someone could support this coup:
[indent]Months ago, Zelaya proposed that on June 28, a national referendum be held to present Hondurans with the question as to whether, during the November 29 national elections, Hondurans could vote on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution.

The current constitution was written in 1982 in the middle of the repression and state terrorism that blanketed Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s. Honduras was controlled by a US-backed military regime; the US had 14 military bases in Honduras.

---

Hmm. Not only do I not like the source, but they seem to get basic history wrong:
Honduras got rid of its military rule in 1981 (under pressure from the US, according to one article) and had free elections. So it was not under the control of a military regime in 1982, or since 1981.

Considering that, and also that the article is from a place with che guevera in the banner, and 'Venezuelan Solidarity' on the side, along with 'Socialist Alliance' and 'Socialist Youth Organization', I'm gonna call BS on it and demand a better source.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.

---

Yeah. From some reports it sounds like the SC ordered the military to do it's constitutional duty. And now comes word that their congress has selected an interim Pres. Though ugly, it sounds legit.

The bothersome bit is Zelaya's bid to hold a national referendum/constitutional convention (that would be their 16th), which might accurately reflect the will of its citizens, vs the current set-up.

But their current constituion (Summary Here) seems to specifically prohibit moves by any official to extend their terms beyond "one" (see specifically, near the bottom of that linked page, the info on Title VII).

Meanwhile, saber-rattling by Chavez automatically makes me suspicious.

Kukri's link says the constitution was drafted while the military was still ruling (from 1980-early 1982), but was written by elected people, who represented the two major political parties. The president elected in 1981 was from one of those parties.

So I'm still not buyin' CA's link.

And Chavez makes me suspicious; this was the same fellow who congratulated Imnadinnerjacket on his 'election victory' in Iran.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Obama says he is "concerned", but doesn't seem to want to actually do anything.

---

That's what he does about EVERYTHING; licks finger, sticks it in the air, and waits to see which way the wind blows. Empty suit.

This looks legitimate. The Congress and judicial system apparently support it, the Acting President appears to be from the same party as the former President and will apparently remain so until elections are held. Right now it looks like an arrest with a bit of extra muscle.

Can I ask an admittedly unlikely hypothetical?

The America President after doing something massively popular just after winning a landslide re-election tables legislation for the 2 terms in office to be relaxed. His minions in the houses are so elated they pass the motion.

What would then happen?

Does the Supreme Court step in and if required ask the military to step in, or does the Commander In Chief of the military command them as it was democratically decided? Could the Prez then remove the Supreme Court for acting against the democratic process?

~:smoking:

Obama:

Quote:

---

"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."

---

So essentially he is concerned but doesn't want anyone from outside of Honduras to interfere. As we already know that the gvt is against the president, Obama basically means to say that he supports the coup and change in president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Can I ask an admittedly unlikely hypothetical?

The America President after doing something massively popular just after winning a landslide re-election tables legislation for the 2 terms in office to be relaxed. His minions in the houses are so elated they pass the motion.

What would then happen?

Does the Supreme Court step in and if required ask the military to step in, or does the Commander In Chief of the military command them as it was democratically decided? Could the Prez then remove the Supreme Court for acting against the democratic process?

~:smoking:

---

Different Constitutions. If both the US House and Senate passed such a "no Prez term limits" bill by a 2-thirds vote of both bodies, it then goes to the 50 States for them to 3-fourths ratify. As soon as the 38th State voted "Yea", it would become the 28th Amendment, overturning the 22nd.

It's not easy to amend the US constitution, but it can be done.

For comparison, the California Constitution can be and is amended by a simple majority citizen initiative - 50% +1 of however many State-wide voters show up can turn an initiative into the latest amendment. Hence why their constitution is a hunk o' junk, legally speaking (IMO), virtually unenforceable.

-edit-
By contrast, Honduras' Constitution tries to hard-wire the 1-term provision, and Zelaya tries to skirt the document by appealing directly to the electorate with a referendum to disregard the current constitution while writing a new one (which would allow multi-terms, and whatever else...). Calling that referendum extra-constitutionally got him into trouble with both other branches of gov't + the military, which has a "separate-but-equal" status as a player in that country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

But then the military branch announced its own President. That to me does not sound even close to an arrest - that to me sounds like a coup from within the government.

---

Military Branch?

Quote:

---

Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

---

Sounds a bit different to me.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Imnadinnerjacket

---

Ahmadinejad.

I don't think the man should have remained in office either. Pushing for an extension of his term is suspicious. But all the Congress and Armed Forces had to do was stop the referendum and ensure that Zelaya left office at the proper time. If anything, this will allow a Zelaya protege to ride to power on the popularity of the deposed president, which is only going to increase because of his arrest/coup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So, what should we make of this?

---

As far as I've understood it, I would say that, roughly, the division runs along the same lines as in better-known Venezuela. Chavez and Zelaya, the leftist populists. Verus the oligarchs.

Like Chavez, Zelaya tried to get a third pesidential term. This is unconstitutional, therefore Zelaya wrote a referendum about it. At this point, the Supreme Court and parliament asked the army to intervene and to oust Zelaya.

Who to root for? Well, as in Venezuela, neither really. When pressed, my heart goes out a wee bit more to Zelaya, but my mind firmly to the Supreme Court and the army.

LEts condemn both, the military who declared that every person away from home at some hour would be arrested, and Zelaya, you are hanging your own king. Our nations doesnt have too many time away from military coups, and we did not earn nothing when militars were in power. Also, Zelaya, those are the rules. Respect alternancy, and you wouldn't have had this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

Zelaya, those are the rules. Respect alternancy, and you wouldn't have had this problem.

---

That's what I was thinking. But the EU, the US and many in Latin America have condemned the coup. Possibly there are factors at work that I am unaware of.

I thoroughly dislike coups, but I didn't think we needed another presidente-for-life. Speaking of which, neither do we need Kirchners-for-life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Obama basically means to say that he supports the coup and change in president.

---

Not so much. Obama wouldn't go against a fellow leftist and Obama is looking into his future as our own dictator for life here in the United Socialists States of America. :laugh4:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...al-says-obama/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Not so much. Obama wouldn't go against a fellow leftist and Obama is looking into his future as our own dictator for life here in the United Socialists States of America. :laugh4:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...al-says-obama/

---

Won't work here in the time he has left, old buddy.

BUT (to indulge my own pet conspiracy theory) he has time in the next 7 years to arrange a US legal military commitment to the UN, whereupon he can get his dream-job of Secretary-General of the UN...

with (finally) a reliable on-call blue-helmet military force to back him up, apart from the US chain-of-command, answerable only to him; he appointed for 5-year terms indefinitely.

So by 2018 or so, after the US has crumbled economically, socially, and culturally of it's own weight and debt and corruption, and the unholy trioka of China, India and Venezuala emerges as the new people's coalition to replace the old superpower(s)...

you get the idea. :)

Honduras? Been there. Guarded airfields. Sat in foxholes. I sympathize with their 80's (current) Constitution, but point out (what I think of as) the error of trying to encode into law in the original document, term-limits or other concepts that don't allow enough flexibility for future generations to change their minds. Term limits are good. Make those provisions amendments (that can be modified later, the nation willing) and set out strict procedures for the amendment process, so that the elected guys, AND THE PEOPLE are heard, but the mob doesn't over-rule common sense.

Quote:

---

The country’s supreme court disagrees, but oh well. The One hath spoken.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a pile of tripe .
Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.
Its why every government that has commented on the events has condemned the coup as illegal , just like they are condemning the shutting down of the media , the round ups of opposing politicians and the blocking of the election monitors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a pile of tripe .
Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.
Its why every government that has commented on the events has condemned the coup as illegal , just like they are condemning the shutting down of the media , the round ups of opposing politicians and the blocking of the election monitors

---

Sadly, I hafta agree. Declaring the referendum illegal, unconstitutional, and non-binding is one thing. Arresting and deporting the referendum-maker - who just happens to be the duly-elected presidente (even if he tried some extra-constitutional measures), is quite another. And the small matter of who controls the military remains. Apparently, at the moment, it's the military themselves (again), under the guise this time of judicial orders.

watta mess.

I’d like to see the actual statue which declares the court and military’s action illegal or unconstitutional. Just because something isn’t expressly allowed by law doesn’t mean it’s against the law.

A better approach would have been for the courts and military to wait take action after the president’s “legitimate” term expired. Then there would be less ambiguity over who is in the right.

And why the deportation? You're just setting yourself up for another coup. If he broke the law/acted unconstitutionally, try him in court.

Quote:

---

Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.

---

But they can make a referendum talking if they could overthrow the president. Oh, wait...

Quote:

---

I thoroughly dislike coups, but I didn't think we needed another presidente-for-life. Speaking of which, neither do we need Kirchners-for-life.

---

We DO need them. Its the first time that Radicals and Peronists are having consensus WITHOUT money aside. They are against both Kirchners, speaking of Nestor, he was the President of the Justicialist Party. Last Sunday, the whole country voted for the renovation of Senators and Diputates. They failed big time. Cristina gives a press conference (the SECOND one since ELECTED) and one of the journalists of Cadena 3 Argentina, a radio I hear almost all day asks her a question. This happened:

Journalist: the question is that the use of the INDEC, one of most questioned and reported policies was to manipulate economic statistics. I would like to know whether to continue with the same policies or if you will modify them. And you join this the issue of federal partnership to Argentine provinces. Are you going to change or not?

President: I would like to point that the question was not an opinion. Because you gave already opinion saying that we manipulated the INDEC statistics.

Journalist: there is a complaint...( a judicial one)

President: normally one question without already having the qualification. If not, almost a statement to which I, instead of reply, have to disprove. You are journalists and know how is this: you ask and I respond. Now, if I have to disprove, already is not a question. But anyway, with such failure or lack of journalistic technique was it I will answer equal.

Gotta love how our president teach us something new every day. She must be some kind of Enciclopedia!

So it seems the past president was doing actions that were against the constitution, and his plan for a referendum was illegal.

And that the military response, as opposed to a police arrest, was not legal.

Right now it seems everyone's - OAS, Obama - coming out on the side of the ousted, illegally acting president. It's a bit of a surprise, and a disappointment from Obama. He takes a hands-off approach on Iran and then says this president, opposed by the court and congress for his illegal actions, has to be reinstated.

CR

Its supposedly against the constitution to bar him from returning as well. Looks like the constitution is flaunted left and right.

Quote:

---

He takes a hands-off approach on Iran and then says this president, opposed by the court and congress for his illegal actions, has to be reinstated.

---

Two entirely different issues , one is a dispute about election results the other is an obvious undeniably illegal coup.