Honduras Coup

[Vikings4ever 496]

Fairly major political thing, but haven't seen a thread on it yet.

 

My thoughts:

 

Sounds like the old president was making a power grab, so the military deposed him, then turned power back over to the rightful successor.

 

The coup wasn't exactly an ideal solution, but sounds a whole lot better so far than some in the past. Only time will tell if it continues to go smoothly. And if the interim president does give up power when the term is over like he said he will.

 

I can see why Chavez is pissed about it, since he and Zelaya are birds of a feather, but I want the US to stay out of it.

 

Other thoughts?

[Uh-huh 0]

Both sides acted illegally -- Zelaya violated law(s), and the opposition used the military to stage a coup d'etat.

 

The whole Zelaya was making a power grab argument is specious. Zelaya couldn't have run for re-election in the upcoming elections even if he had held the referendum.

 

A pox on both their houses.

[Strike 3,979]

Typically, a coup involves the military overthrowing the president to take power, and retaining power. In this case the military was ordered to take out the president by the Supreme Court of the land. Here are the FACTS in this case:

 

1) The President tried to hold an illegal referendum.

2) The Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Honduras told him he couldn't do it and he defied them.

3) The ballots weren't even official Honduras ballots. They were sent to him by another country, maybe Chavez. Can't remember but it can be looked up if you care.

4) The head of the military refused to do the logistics of the referendum since the courts had ruled it illegal. The President FIRED him. Several other high ranking military resigned in solidarity with the guy who was fired.

5) The President broke in to the location where the ballots were being held and stole them.

6) The Supreme Court told the military to remove him from power for violating their order as well as defying the constitution.

 

I would hope that if our President ever defied our Supreme Court that he would be removed from office similarly, or perhaps more violently . I can't understand the international condemnation of this completely appropriate and, as far as I can tell, legal action.

[Uh-huh 0]

Wrong on several levels:

 

Typically, a coup involves the military overthrowing the president to take power, and retaining power.

A coup is a coup no matter who orders it. Despite the arguments posed by right-wing conservatives both here and in Honduras, this was unquestionably a coup d'etat.

In this case the military was ordered to take out the president by the Supreme Court of the land. Here are the FACTS what the right-wingers want you to believe are the facts in this case:

1) The President tried to hold an illegal referendum.

 

It was illegal only after the Congress passed a law prohibiting it on the Tuesday before the referendum.

2) The Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Honduras told him he couldn't do it and he defied them.

See previous.

3) The ballots weren't even official Honduras ballots. They were sent to him by another country, maybe Chavez. Can't remember but it can be looked up if you care.

4) The head of the military refused to do the logistics of the referendum since the courts had ruled it illegal. The President FIRED him. Several other high ranking military resigned in solidarity with the guy who was fired.

According to their constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, so he was within his rights to fire the military commander.

5) The President broke in to the location where the ballots were being held and stole them.

Link?

6) The Supreme Court told the military to remove him from power for violating their order as well as defying the constitution.

 

By doing this the Supreme Court abrogated the Honduran Constitution. They ordered the military to do something which was against their Constitution, hence illegal.

 

I would hope that if our President ever defied our Supreme Court that he would be removed from office similarly, or perhaps more violently . I can't understand the international condemnation of this completely appropriate and, as far as I can tell, legal action.

I would hope your wish never comes true, because that would be the end of our system of government.

 

The military acted illegally, given the Honduran constitution. There is no provision in their Constitution for what happened.

 

Zelaya also acted illegally. However, they have a process to remove him from office -- impeachment. They decided to ignore that process and remove him from office using force. That's called a coup, and that's why over 60 countries have condemned what happened.

[Strike 3,979]

Wrong on several levels:

A coup is a coup no matter who orders it. Despite the arguments posed by right-wing conservatives both here and in Honduras, this was unquestionably a coup d'etat.

It was illegal only after the Congress passed a law prohibiting it on the Tuesday before the referendum.

 

See previous.

 

According to their constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, so he was within his rights to fire the military commander.

 

Link?

By doing this the Supreme Court abrogated the Honduran Constitution. They ordered the military to do something which was against their Constitution, hence illegal.

I would hope your wish never comes true, because that would be the end of our system of government.

 

The military acted illegally, given the Honduran constitution. There is no provision in their Constitution for what happened.

 

Zelaya also acted illegally. However, they have a process to remove him from office -- impeachment. They decided to ignore that process and remove him from office by force.

 

That's a coup, and that's why over 60 countries have condemned what happened.

 

Their constitution prohibits the President from trying to change the term/length of his Presidency. The fact that you can't even agree on that pretty much shows me where this would go, TorridJr.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Typically, a coup involves the military overthrowing the president to take power, and retaining power. In this case the military was ordered to take out the president by the Supreme Court of the land. Here are the FACTS in this case:

 

1) The President tried to hold an illegal referendum.

2) The Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Honduras told him he couldn't do it and he defied them.

3) The ballots weren't even official Honduras ballots. They were sent to him by another country, maybe Chavez. Can't remember but it can be looked up if you care.

4) The head of the military refused to do the logistics of the referendum since the courts had ruled it illegal. The President FIRED him. Several other high ranking military resigned in solidarity with the guy who was fired.

5) The President broke in to the location where the ballots were being held and stole them.

6) The Supreme Court told the military to remove him from power for violating their order as well as defying the constitution.

 

I would hope that if our President ever defied our Supreme Court that he would be removed from office similarly, or perhaps more violently . I can't understand the international condemnation of this completely appropriate and, as far as I can tell, legal action.

Hadn't heard the specifics about the ballots (other than part of it was to end the term limits), or the firing. Hell, the Democrats should be up in arms over it, after the hell they raised when Bush fired those prosecutors.

 

I agree, the international reaction is puzzling. If the military had retained control, and/or they were putting down protests, it would be more understandable.

 

But, then again, considering how much power the politicians have been grabbing, something like this could incite other incidents.

[Uh-huh 0]

Their constitution prohibits the President from trying to change the term/length of his Presidency. The fact that you can't even agree on that pretty much shows me where this would go, TorridJr.

Excuse me, but you are demonstrating you don't know what you are talking about, Rush Jr.

 

Zelaya's opponents are trying to justify their action by saying Zelaya's intention was to set himself up as a permanent President.

 

As you may or may not know, constitutions can be modified via amendments.

 

Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to ask the electorate whether they wanted to decide in the November elections to convoke a Constitutional Assembly for the purpose of proposing and debating amendments to their Constitution.

 

Which means the electorate would have to say "Yes, we want to have another ballot box in November" before even thinking about having a Constitutional Assembly.

 

Now, obviously one of the proposed amendments could have been to remove the President's single term limit and allow him/her to stand for re-election. But this would have to be debated and passed before it could become part of their law.

 

What people don't seem to "get" is this would not have helped Zelaya get re-elected in the upcoming elections. Yes, he could stand for re-election in a FUTURE election. So? If the Hondurans like the guy so much, then let him be re-elected.

 

Let's not get carried away here with right-wing propaganda. How about sticking to the FACTS?

[Strike 3,979]

Hadn't heard the specifics about the ballots (other than part of it was to end the term limits), or the firing. Hell, the Democrats should be up in arms over it, after the hell they raised when Bush fired those prosecutors.

 

I agree, the international reaction is puzzling. If the military had retained control, and/or they were putting down protests, it would be more understandable.

 

But, then again, considering how much power the politicians have been grabbing, something like this could incite other incidents.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

I can see why Obama is concerned. It sets a precedent that defying your own nation's laws is not acceptable, even if you're President.

[Uh-huh 0]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

I can see why Obama is concerned. It sets a precedent that defying your own nation's laws is not acceptable, even if you're President.

 

This is so stupid it's laughable. You're in Recliner Pilot territory now.

[Strike 3,979]

Excuse me, but you are demonstrating you don't know what you are talking about, Rush Jr.

 

Zelaya's opponents are trying to justify their action by saying Zelaya's intention was to set himself up as a permanent President.

 

As you may or may not know, constitutions can be modified via amendments.

 

Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to ask the electorate whether they wanted to decide in the November elections to convoke a Constitutional Assembly for the purpose of proposing and debating amendments to their Constitution.

 

Now, obviously one of the proposed amendents could have been to remove the President's single term limit and allow him/her to stand for re-election. But this would have to be debated and passed before it could become part of their law.

 

What people don't seem to "get" is this would not have helped Zelaya get re-elected in the upcoming elections. Yes, he could stand for re-election in a FUTURE election. So?

 

Let's not get carried away here with right-wing propaganda. How about sticking to the FACTS?

 

I'm just going to ask you two questions:

 

1) Was he defying an order from the Supreme Court of his country by trying to hold a referendum? This is a yes/no question. No yes but sh!t.....

 

2) Do you think President's, in any democratic country, are above the law?

[Uh-huh 0]

I'm just going to ask you two questions:

 

1) Was he defying an order from the Supreme Court of his country by trying to hold a referendum? This is a yes/no question. No yes but sh!t.....

 

2) Do you think President's, in any democratic country, are above the law?

 

In turn, I am going to ask you one: did you read the several posts where I said Zelaya acted illegally?

 

Let me ask another: how about the part where I said the Honduran constitution has a process called IMPEACHMENT to deal with Presidents who act illegally?

 

Wow.

 

Another one: if the President acts illegally, does that justify the opposition acting illegally also?

 

Last one: did you know there's a debate tactic called "changing the subject"? Probably, given you are using it.

 

You know what? You just want to regurgitate right-wing talking points and attack Obama. Have at it. I'm done with you.

[Strike 3,979]

In turn, I am going to ask you one: did you read the several posts where I said Zelaya acted illegally?

 

Let me ask another: how about the part where I said the Honduran constitution has a process called IMPEACHMENT to deal with Presidents who act illegally?

 

Link? AFAIK there is not a process for impeaching the President. There are, however, clauses that make the military the defender of the constitution. I'd do some more research but I'm on my way out the door. I'd love for you to actually back up what you're saying with some evidence. I've never seen you do that in the past though. Typically, you just talk out of your A$$. So I don't expect it but am willing to be edumucated.

[Strike 3,979]

Another one: if the President acts illegally, does that justify the opposition acting illegally also?

 

Oh, and BTW, I dont know if I'd term those who acted against him "the opposition". It was the rest of his freakin' government, including his VP who is a member of the same political party, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature (again including his supporters) who installed a new interim President. So if Obama does something illegal and Biden acts against him I guess Biden is now the "opposition".

 

[Uh-huh 0]

Link? AFAIK there is not a process for impeaching the President. There are, however, clauses that make the military the defender of the constitution. I'd do some more research but I'm on my way out the door. I'd love for you to actually back up what you're saying with some evidence. I've never seen you do that in the past though. Typically, you just talk out of your A$$. So I don't expect it but am willing to be edumucated.

Have you ever heard that saying, "When trying to get out of a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging"?

 

You need to stop digging, Strikey.

 

I have a suggestion: go look at Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution. Especially Article 3:

 

ARTICULO 3.- Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman funciones o empleos públicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitución y las leyes establecen.

 

Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional.

 

Oh, and BTW, I dont know if I'd term those who acted against him "the opposition". It was the rest of his freakin' government, including his VP who is a member of the same political party, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature (again including his supporters) who installed a new interim President. So if Obama does something illegal and Biden acts against him I guess Biden is now the "opposition".

 

Please. Now you're throwing softballs.

 

Zelaya's Vice President, Elvin Ernesto De Los Santos, resigned almost a year ago. The office of the VP was vacant. Which is why Micheletti assumed power, as he was next in line according to the Constitution (so at least the "golpistas" followed the Constitution to that extent).

 

Number two fact: Micheletti is a member of the same party as Zelaya but they are political enemies even though members of the same party. Don't believe me -- look it up.

 

Number three fact: The opposition (and that word doesn't only mean "members of the opposing party", btw) acted illegally according to their own Constitution. See Article 3 above.

 

I reiterate -- both parties acted illegally. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Zelaya's opposition messed up by removing him using the military -- a coup d'etat. They should have initiated impeachment proceedings instead, and if Zelaya refused to appear THEN they could order him and arrest him if he did not appear to face trial.

 

But they got impatient.

[Strike 3,979]

Have you ever heard that saying, "When trying to get out of a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging"?

 

You need to stop digging, Strikey.

 

I have a suggestion: go look at Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution. Especially Article 3:

Please. Now you're throwing softballs.

 

Zelaya's Vice President, Elvin Ernesto De Los Santos, resigned almost a year ago. The office of the VP was vacant. Which is why Micheletti assumed power, as he was next in line according to the Constitution (so at least the "golpistas" followed the Constitution to that extent).

 

Number two fact: Micheletti is a member of the same party as Zelaya but they are political enemies even though members of the same party. Don't believe me -- look it up.

 

Number three fact: The opposition (and that word doesn't only mean "members of the opposing party", btw) acted illegally according to their own Constitution. See Article 3 above.

 

I reiterate -- both parties acted illegally. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Zelaya's opposition messed up by removing him using the military -- a coup d'etat. They should have initiated impeachment proceedings instead, and if Zelaya refused to appear THEN they could order him and arrest him if he did not appear to face trial.

 

But they got impatient.

 

Great. No link and no translation. Well done, MuhammadJr.

 

[remote controller 133]

I'll turn on FOX news then let you know what I think!