Comments on: On the Honduran Coup

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:16:35 +0000

FYI: I have found and posted the exact language of the referendum here. While I agree that he was acting in contradiction to a Supreme Court order, should have stopped, and deserved legal action against him, it is difficult to look at the language and question and reach the conclusion that he was trying to "effectively destroy Honduras' democracy." Beyond that, and this is the key point I keep trying to make: the extra-legal removal of an elected president isn't the best way to preserve democracy.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:11:17 +0000

As President Zelaya was taking extra-constitutional means to try and effectively destroy Honduras' democracy, I'm inclined to be a little more lenient towards the actions of the Honduran judiciary and legislative branches of the their government and the military's execution of their orders in this instance.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:42:25 +0000

The thing is that I think a lot of people are getting too wrapped up in a) Chavez/Castro and/or b) what Obama said or didn't say and aren't evaluating the situation for what it is.

I would submit that Chavez is a side issue at best and the constitutionality of the event has nothing whatsoever as to what Obama said or didn't say.

All I would like to see people do is evaluate what happened apart from whether Hugo Chavez or Barack Obama liked it or not.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:18:51 +0000

I wasn't really directing that comment at anyone, because I don't know what the right answer is. It's a choice between several bad alternatives. But I am shocked (do not read any irony into this) at how quickly President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have jumped on Honduras considering their dithering on Iran. Being on the side of Chavez and Castro when Chavez is threatening military action should give anyone pause.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:28:21 +0000

I agree with G.A. for once. Even as a slightly left-leaning moderate, Pelosi scares the crap out of me. Heck, Reid does, too.

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:55:46 +0000

If Obama were ousted taken from the White House and exiled to Canada and Speaker Pelosi was sworn in as President, and yet the rest of the government was still in place, that would be a coup.

Damn thats a scary thought........

By: Al Bullock

Al Bullock — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:14:59 +0000

Keeping the "free" free! One look at Venezuela and Bolivia and the action which forced the President into exile is tantamount to control of the Government. A wrong to right a wrong? A fair judgement

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:01:17 +0000

There is absolutely no constitutional power given to the Supreme Court, et al., to do what they did--there really is no debate to be had on that point. Even if one fully supports what was done, one has to at least face up to what the action was.

It it not any different than if the US Supreme Court ordered the arrest and exile of the POTUS. They don't have that power and it would be an illegal act.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:56:19 +0000

Zelaya was taken from the presidency by force in an illegal fashion and Micheletti installed via that process

It wasn't illegal. The Honduran military is responsible for elections. Zelaya was illegally interfering with elections. The military was ordered to arrest him. They arrested him.

You may not like that particular setup (and indeed, having the military involved in law enforcement is a bad idea), but that doesn't make it necessarily illegal.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:32:41 +0000

Charles,

If you are directing your comment at me (and I am not sure if you are) my point is that an extralegal removal of a president will likely have a long-term and damaging effect on Honduran democracy. There is no evidence to suggest that the option here were a) a coup or b) lose democracy.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:21:35 +0000

If we acknowledge that the Honduran democracy was rather weak, does that mean they should give it up, rather than take unappealing steps that many there feel were necessary to save it? I don't think this rises to the level of having to destroy their democracy in order to save it.

The perfect remains the enemy of the good.

By: Honduras, We Have A Problem « Around The Sphere

Honduras, We Have A Problem « Around The Sphere — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:22:30 +0000

[...] #2: Steven Taylor: I think it is also worth noting that many are forming opinions simply based on the fact that ousted [...]

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:18:00 +0000

DL: less bloody than a revolution, but still illegal.

Zelsdorf: so, when one part of the government is behaving illegally, the solution should be for other parts of the government to also behave illegally?

Stormy: a coup is an extralegal method of transferring power that does not require the total destruction or replacement of a sitting government. Zelaya was taken from the presidency by force in an illegal fashion and Micheletti installed via that process. Its a coup. It was bloodless, it was less dramatic than many have been, but it was a coup.

If Obama were ousted taken from the White House and exiled to Canada and Speaker Pelosi was sworn in as President, and yet the rest of the government was still in place, that would be a coup.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:39:47 +0000

"coup" implies the government was overthrown. The government of Honduras is still standing; it was a single man who was removed.

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:07:19 +0000

Whats to agree? Their constitution cannot be amended by plebiscite and the constitution limited the term the president could serve. Their supreme court said no and they enforced it. Looks to me like a good blueprint for future use.