« Helen Thomas to Obama: If you see the importance of Neda video, why won't you release abuse photos? | truthseeker77's Blog | Right-wing hack Rasmussen predictably comes up with poll finding a plurality against Sotomayor's confirmation »
The Honduran coup: justified?
Before I make up my mind about whether the coup d'etat today in Honduras was justified, can someone with more knowledge in Honduran affairs tell me if it is true that the President totally disregarded a Supreme Court decision that the referendum set to occur in a few days is unconstitutional?
If that is the case, should we protest against a coup against the executive while turning a deaf ear to a coup against the equally important judicial branch?
If one day our President disregarded a decision by our highest court, what would we think? Would not we view him as a threat to the United States of America?
Some might argue that perhaps Congress should have the last word on such decision, but turns out that the Honduran congress also called for the ousting of the President, as you may have read in news reports. In fact, Congress had also declared the referendum unconstitutional.
These questions should be pondered.
BLOOMBERG (6-28-09): The president had planned to use results from a poll this weekend, which is being managed by the president's supporters and the National Statistics Institute, to press for a national referendum in November on whether to change the constitution. That vote was to be held in tandem with national elections, a process the Supreme Court has already ruled illegal.
If that is the case, should we protest against a coup against the executive while turning a deaf ear to a coup against the equally important judicial branch?
If one day our President disregarded a decision by our highest court, what would we think? Would not we view him as a threat to the United States of America?
Some might argue that perhaps Congress should have the last word on such decision, but turns out that the Honduran congress also called for the ousting of the President, as you may have read in news reports. In fact, Congress had also declared the referendum unconstitutional.
NEW YORK TIMES: Last week, the Supreme Court and Congress both declared the referendum unconstitutional. But on Thursday, the president led a group of protesters to an air force installation and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor's office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.Was the President's action itself a coup against the Constitution?
These questions should be pondered.
Advertisement
I'm kind of wondering about this too. I'm not sure it's even correct to call this a coup. From the NYT summary (on artappraiser's thread):
So this hardly seems to be your usual military coup. It appears the military, congress, and judiciary are all in agreement. If anything it kind of looks like Zelaya was the one fomenting.
Apparently the legislature also convened on Sunday to legally remove Zelaya from office and replace him with the president of the congress. So it seems that unlike a traditional military coup, control of the government still lies with the people, not the military. I don't know their laws, but if the legislature has the right to remove the President, this really isn't a coup at all.
This is a very odd situation; methinks the American media may just be accepting Chavez's coup frame without really thinking about the situation much. I sort of wish Obama had shown the same restraint here as with Iran in terms of waiting for the dust to settle before making a statement.
June 28, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! That NYT article wasn't quoted when I started this comment ... was it? Damn, must be losing my marbles.
June 28, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been adding stuff little by little as I find them. Hehe. Next time I'll write "update".
June 28, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s not a coup; the military was sworn out to do what it did, and Zelaya's replacement is just filling out the last six months of his term, nothing more.
As for Sage, it may simply be a better solution all around to have him expelled, as KGB wisely brings up the Charles Taylor counterexample.
June 29, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Often times things break down into a power struggle -- both sides know whats up and start assembling forces-- and whether it is a "coup" or "counter coup" depends on whether you support them or not.
June 28, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the coup was CIA supported/enabled, you can bet that the NYT would have a supportive article ready to be published the same day.
June 29, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
You got it.
I cannot believe that, such a short time after the run up to Iraq, there are still people that consider the NYT as an objective source of information.
The short of it:
Honduras is a country of desperately poor, brown skinned people ruled by a rich, selfish, brutal, minority of white, criollos. When one of their number, Zelaya, tried to change the equation, they brought out the tanks. It really is that simple.
But don't worry, I understand that president Obama is concerned.
June 29, 2009 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
1987 called, they want their one-size-fits-all explanation for life back.
June 29, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the excuses won't fly.
If the Honduran President did something illegal here, then why wasn't he arrested and tried inside the country instead of being expelled?
If push had come to shove in Watergate, Nixon would have been tried in the United States, not put on a flight to Switzerland.
The irregular and certainly extra-legal expulsion of the president, rather than his impeachment and trial according to orderly procedure, brands the whole affair as illegitimate. The OAS is justified in bringing down the new government by any means necessary.
June 29, 2009 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The (apparently ex) Honduran president did indeed do something illegal here: he gathered a mob and physically attacked an air force base because he didn't like the supreme court's ruling. Zelaya didn't hold a peaceful demonstration - he led an assault on a military complex. Had that happened in the USA - the military would have used deadly force to prevent the breach.
Charles Taylor also was sent into exile from Liberia. Are you going to say that the AU should have done everything in their power to restore his power?
June 29, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the suggestion is that if the Judiciary, Legislature, and military are all so very concerned about preventing violations of the Constitution - why did they violate it in exiling the duly-elected President?
Lack of consistency certainly suggests shenanigans, irrespective of those previously engaged in by the executive.
June 29, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just an old fashioned banana republic coup and the US should distance itself from it or kiss Obama's Latin America strategy good bye.
June 29, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing.
Obama doesn't want to interefere with Iran because it's a "sovereign nation" but doesn't bat an eye or waste a second to interfere with Honduras.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the nukes trump the princples. Every time.
June 29, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, folks. The Honduran Congress and Supremes ruled that a "referendum" would be unconstitutional. What triggered the coup was an effort to ask the people what they thought about it. It was a poll, for Christ's sake, a poll. Don't you get it? The Criollos (thanks, David Seaton) don't want to know what the people think about it.
It's like John McCain saying "lock-up that summitch Zogby for trying to choose the president"
June 29, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that you have access to the text of the Supreme Court ruling.
June 29, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink