This is a perfect example of some in this country of ignoring the facts, because the facts get in the way of acheiving their goals.

That's a statement you should pay attention to ...

I'm ignoring no facts. The coup was illegal.

How was it illegal?

I'm ignoring no facts. The coup was illegal.

 

How was it illegal?

 

If a coup is overthrowing the sitting government, can there be a legal coup?

How was it illegal?

 

Because the military removed an elected leader with no legal or constitutional authority to do so. In fact, their constitution specifically defines usurpation as treason.

Because the military removed an elected leader with no legal or constitutional authority to do so. In fact, their constitution specifically defines usurpation as treason.

But didn't their supreme court and congress decide he was no longer eligible to be president? If so, there was no usurpation. Also, the military did not "ursurp" authority. They did not replace the president with military authority. Was it an ultra vires? Perhaps, but even then, how does that make Obama supporting Zelaya the correct opinion?

But didn't their supreme court and congress decide he was no longer eligible to be president? If so, there was no usurpation. Also, the military did not "ursurp" authority. They did not replace the president with military authority. Was it an ultra vires? Perhaps, but even then, how does that make Obama supporting Zelaya the correct opinion?

 

Zelaya was acting illegally, which makes his condemnation by the Honduran supreme court and congress unsurprising, but his armed ouster all the more incriminating, as it appears legal channels are present and had been attempted to be used. An elected leader was forcefully removed by the military; whether the military governs or not is inconsequential. This is anathema to democracy.

 

As I stated before – though, I’m no expert on Honduran politics - I consider both Zelaya’s attempts at referendum and the coup to be illegal based on their constitution and democratic norms. In this light, the least bad option is for Zelaya to be reinstated and then removed legally and democratically while also prosecuting those responsible for the coup, if that is their will. Supporting military interference in a democratic government is an untenable position for any leader of a democracy and is especially troubling when it is done for ideological purposes.

Zelaya was acting illegally, which makes his condemnation by the Honduran supreme court and congress unsurprising, but his armed ouster all the more incriminating, as it appears legal channels are present and had been attempted to be used. An elected leader was forcefully removed by the military; whether the military governs or not is inconsequential. This is anathema to democracy.

 

As I stated before – though, I’m no expert on Honduran politics - I consider both Zelaya’s attempts at referendum and the coup to be illegal based on their constitution and democratic norms. In this light, the least bad option is for Zelaya to be reinstated and then removed legally and democratically while also prosecuting those responsible for the coup, if that is their will. Supporting military interference in a democratic government is an untenable position for any leader of a democracy and is especially troubling when it is done for ideological purposes.

 

 

So had the military, acting on the request of the other branches of government, arrested him for continuing to serve after violating the constitution pending a trial would it have been acceptable?

So had the military, acting on the request of the other branches of government, arrested him for continuing to serve after violating the constitution pending a trial would it have been acceptable?

 

From my interpretation of the Honduran constitution, the military has no authority to carry out orders from the court, congress, or unconstitutional orders from the executive. More broadly, I don't see a role for the military in the establishment of authority in a democratic state.

 

Furthermore, in the present situation the sponsors of the coup in Honduras purport that Zelaya was offered exile in exchange for not being prosecuted while Zelaya purports he was unwillingly exiled at gunpoint. Either story, especially the former, provides a tacit admission that the means for prosecution were available and had not been used, which further condemns the use of the military in this situation.

If we have a terrible record in Latin America and Obama does not want to interfere in local politics, why did he make a statement so quickly? I believe Obama likes strong arm rule that we see in Iran, North Korea and Venzuela. Another Chavez and America hater in Latin America would be OK with him.

 

Although I understand where you're coming from, if you look at the past 30-40 years of US foreign policy, ESPECIALLY in the developing world this is EXACTLY what we like. We can predict, and interfere with a dictator at just about any time we choose. Shoot we can even "support" certain ethnic groups without getting our names dirty. This is old school with a new face, however thanks to world wide media, it doesn't go as un-noticed as it did in the past.

And vice versa ...

 

Doubtful.

Has anyone else noticed Russia's stance on the matter?

I'm ignoring no facts. The coup was illegal.

 

If PepRock is correct about the Honduran Constitution the removal of the President may have been extreme, but his actions would lead to his removal from office. Just too bad one of your potential dictators was removed from office.

Doubtful.

Doubtful?

 

You don't know me very well, then ...

What many fail to also recognize is that President Obama's position was in line with the positions of the European community and the United Nations. Truth is what you choose to accept and believe but I feel it is refreshing to attempt to work with the international community and not always be on the outside.

What the military did was illegal. There is no provision in Honduran law that would allow them to pick up the president and dump him in Costa Rica. I still find Obama's position very disturbing. Maybe he wants to be president for life too.