 |
The judges on the Honduran Supreme Court declared his actions illegal and unconstitutional... a conclusion shared by the Congress and the President's own political party, including his own attorney general.Quote:
I trust my SENSES...
At what time should the military act when a President is in the process of declaring himself dictator ? Does your senses say they should wait until AFTER he has completed the transition ? DUDE!!
Amazingly, I have to admit Ex is correct in one item. Zelaya was arrested that Sunday morning, and the Legislature did not formally remove him from office until Sunday afternoon, thereby making it a coup. If the arrest had occurred afterwards, it would not have been one, but that's an if.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Maybe I don't understand... He WAS elected in the first place. All he did was SAY that he was going to run again...
Seems to me all they had to do is NOT elect him. Maybe they could have kept him off the ballots by NOT PRINTING HIS NAME. Maybe they could have kept him OFF television... I don't know. It seems they could have done a LOT of stuff short of a coup.
excon
Now THAT is the first viable position that I have heard on this subject... it actually addresses the facts and the law, not opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Excon, you could learn something from Cats...
Question: do we know when their Supreme Court ruled Zelaya's actions to have been illegal and unconstitutional? Because that may have been earlier in the day, which would mean that this wasn't a coup.
Elliot
First of all, he was term-limited out. Second, he began a movement to create an illegal vote that violated that term limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
He wasn't elligible to run in the first place. His name WASN'T on the ballot. He was starting a strong-arm movement to get himself onto the ballot anyway. THAT is a coup. That is, in fact, the classical definition of a coup.Quote:
Seems to me all they had to do is NOT elect him. Maybe they could have kept him off the ballots by NOT PRINTING HIS NAME. Maybe they could have kept him OFF television... I don't know. It seems they could have done a LOT of stuff short of a coup.
Excon
His actions were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled his actions illegal, and he kept doing it anyway. He was then arrested. Congress ruled him to be in violation of the Constitution and ordered him to be removed from office by the military. Those actions were all in keeping with the Constitution of Honduras. They did NOT constitute a coup.
COULD they have done something else instead? Maybe. But the actions that they did take were NOT illegal and did not constitute a coup.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't know. I'm not convinced that simply using strong armed tactics to GET ON THE BALLOT, so the people can VOTE their mind in a FREE election, is a coup.
Nope. I'm not convinced at all. You're going to have to do better...
excon
I'm sorry... Using strong-arm tactics to violate the constitution of Honduras, which has term limits, doesn't constitute a violation of the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ohh... I'm sorry.. I forget who I'm talking to. Mr. Criminal Rights himself. Of course you don't have a problem with people breaking the law, unless they're CONSERVATIVES.
Elliot
All that is besides the point . I again address the specifics of the clause in their constitution
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.The language is unambiguous .He violated the law by just proposing changing the law . I have already explained why that provision was put into the constitution. But I'll say it again.. It was put in to guard against the very thing he tried to do... make himself President for life.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I'm sure it WAS against the law. I'm also sure it WASN'T a coup.
I also understand, tom, that his INTENTION was to get himself elected for life, contrary to law. What I DON'T understand, is what his INTENTION has to do with a military coup. Especially when what he INTENDED had to be APPROVED of by the electorate.
ELECTIONS are a BIG distinction. I don't think you guys get it... When elections are held freely, as they are in Honduras, you've got to believe, that no matter what ruinous, and illegal machinations a deranged leader might INTEND, he WILL be thwarted by the electorate.
THAT is democracy at work - not sending in the troops.
excon
Sending in the troops worked well in Little Rock
In 10 years when he is eligible to run again (according to the law as written in 239 )the people will have their say.
What he SHOULD have done was lobby for a change to the Constitution. That is how law abiding citizens work within the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But he didn't do that. Instead he got himself a mob and tried to FORCE the government to accept an illegal election.
THAT is a coup, no matter how you slice it.
It wasn't about intent. It was about the illegal actions he actually took in an attempt to grab power that was not legally his.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Let's be clear... He grabbed power to RUN FOR OFFICE - where the electorate could TURN HIM OUT if they chose to do so...
excon
Hello again,
Besides that, why couldn't he have hired a couple Justice Department lawyers to write a memo saying that he CAN run again? We know people who do that.
excon
He grabbed power ILLEGALLY to run for an office for which he was not legally elligible. That's all that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It would be like Bush deciding that he wants to run for a third term as President. It doesn't matter whether the PEOPLE want him to run or not. It doesn't matter whether he can win the election or not. It is illegal for him to run. And if he tries to do so by using strong-arm tactics, he has violated the law, violated the Constitution, and has attempted a coup. His removal, even by the military, is an act that presereves and protects the Constitution.
I see that you are no longer arguing that Zelaya had the legal right to do what he did. You agree that what he did was illegal. You even agree that it was a power grab.
So what is it you're arguing? That despite the fact that he broke the law, violated the Constitution, and was making an illegal power grab, he should have been allowed to run anyway?
On what legal basis? Where does it say that people who are not legally allowed to run for office should be permitted to do so anyway, as long as they have a mob at their backs?
There is no legal basis for your position.
You are just trying to be populist by saying that "the people should decide". But your populist argument doesn't trump the law. By your own admission, Zelaya violated the law in an illegal attempt to grab power. That's the only thing that matters.
Elliot
Yep... and we have a bunch of folks who are trying to prosecute them for it... or are you saying that they shouldn't be investigating and prosecuting them?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You paint yourself into corners too easily.
Zelaya COULD have tried that approach... but he didn't. Instead he went straight for the strong-arm tactics.
Coup.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Not at all.. What MATTERS is that the military conducted a COUP instead of just sending a couple cops to arrest him.
If they'd arrested him and thrown him in jail, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Amazing... You always forget the IMPORTANT parts of the discussions. That's OK. I'm here to fill in the gaps.
Excn
And the legal difference is...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There is none.
They DID arrest him and throw him in jail. But it was military personnel that did it, not cops.Quote:
If they'd arrested him and thrown him in jail, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
And again, the difference is...
There is none.
Still waiting for you to fill in a gap. Or FIND one, for that matter.Quote:
Amazing... You always forget the IMPORTANT parts of the discussions. That's OK. I'm here to fill in the gaps.
Excn
Let's see, how many times did we hear complaints of Bush imposing his will on other countries? I get it though, Obama is simply restoring America's standing in the world by imposing his will on a democratic ally enforcing its constitution.Quote:
Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.
Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."
But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?
Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.
It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.
Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.
Oh, one more thing you won't hear about in the obedient media on this story, in August the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that, "The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."
I have not found a direct link to the CRS report written by CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez .
The Wall Street Journal also quotes her as writing in the report that :
"Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system,"
Mary O'Grady: Hillary's Honduras Obsession - WSJ.com
I've looked also, good luck finding anything on a government website, particularly from CRS.
The sitting Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, has spoken on this alleged military coup - like that ain't what happened.
Quote:
My country is in an unusual position this week. Former president Manuel Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras, still claiming to be the country's legitimate leader, despite the fact that a constitutional succession took place on June 28. Amid all of the claims that are likely to be made in coming days, the former president will not mention that the people of Honduras have moved on since the events of that day or that our citizens are looking forward to free, fair and transparent elections on Nov. 29.
The international community has wrongfully condemned the events of June 28 and mistakenly labeled our country as undemocratic. I must respectfully disagree. As the true story slowly emerges, there is a growing sense that what happened in Honduras that day was not without merit. On June 28, the Honduran Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya for his blatant violations of our constitution, which marked the end of his presidency. To this day, an overwhelming majority of Hondurans support the actions that ensured the respect of the rule of law in our country.
Underlying all the rhetoric about a military overthrow are facts. Simply put, coups do not leave civilians in control over the armed forces, as is the case in Honduras today. Neither do they allow the independent functioning of democratic institutions -- the courts, the attorney general's office, the electoral tribunal. Nor do they maintain a respect for the separation of powers. In Honduras, the judicial, legislative and executive branches are all fully functioning and led by civilian authorities.
Coups do not allow freedom of assembly, either. They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant. And on Nov. 29 our country plans to hold the ultimate civic exercise of any democracy: a free and open presidential election.
Although much of the international community disagrees with our past actions, we can all agree on the necessity of ensuring Honduras's full commitment to the electoral process. Our citizens believe that the upcoming presidential election is the best way to guarantee peace and democracy. While the election will take place in little more than 60 days, the electoral process has been underway for some time. The election is being convened by an autonomous body, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, whose magistrates were selected by Congress in early 2009 and ratified by then-President Zelaya. The autonomous body began the electoral process with presidential primary elections -- which were supervised by the Organization of American States -- in 2008 also during Zelaya's tenure. The upcoming election will include Honduras's first independent presidential candidate -- a rarity in all of Latin America.
The winner of the November election will take office as president of Honduras in January 2010. At that moment my transitional administration will cease, and the newly sworn-in president will hold all the authority vested to him by our country's constitution.
Our whole country -- whether members of political parties, youths, students or members of civil society, government, parental organizations or private businesses -- is committed to guaranteeing transparent elections. Voter turnout will be a constitutional expression of self-determination and a demonstration of national sovereignty. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal has invited independent observers from around the globe to observe our voting process. Our country is open to the world. All organizations -- churches, universities, think tanks, nongovernmental organizations -- that wish to witness firsthand this great exercise of self-determination and democracy are welcome.
We are, of course, disappointed with the position of the United States and the European Union, both longtime friends. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the United States, the European Union and the rest of the international community to prove our commitment to democracy and the Honduran people's love of freedom. Coercive action directed at our nation will only harm less fortunate Hondurans, whose hospitals, schools, roads and other institutions rely greatly on our friends' generous assistance, for which all of our citizens are immensely grateful.
I have said from the moment I was sworn in as president of Honduras that I do not intend to remain in office one second more than what our constitution mandates. On Jan. 27 I will hand over leadership responsibilities to the ninth president of our 27-year-old democracy. Such actions are in keeping with the desire of the majority of our people: the strengthening of our democracy.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You expected him to say, what?? But, you politically correct righty's can't change a coup into a Constitutional succession. Try as you might, you just can't do it.
Boy, you and the LIBS in Berkeley have a LOT in common.. Politically correct speech - Hmph...
excon
Ex, you must have drank the koolaid.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS ) examining the evidence and based on their reading of Honduran Constitution and law has concluded that "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system"...
"The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings." The report was written by CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez.
But I have already provided the provisions from their constitution verbadum .This is just additional confirmation from an organization the Congress empowers to make these evaluations for them .
New development is that Zelaya has been smuggled back into the country . He is in the Brazilian Embassy.Honduran soldiers have surrounded the embassy. Meanwhile Brazil has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council over Hondurans and of course the prick Hugo Chavez is flapping his gums in NY .demanding Zeyla's reinstatement . It appears his return to Honduras was coordinated to make as big an impact on the UN meetings this week.
The UN is of course compliant in the charade inviting the ousted would be dictator Zeyla to speak for the nation instead of it's legitimate President . This is a move consistent with that group of thugs ,dictators ,and generally jack booted leaders of the worlds less than free states that call themselves the General Assembly.
Obama revoked the visa of Honduran president Roberto Micheletti, preventing his entry into the United States. This is a move he did not make to any other world leader no matter how brutal they are.
I would say my respect for our President cannot get any lower. But tomorrow's another day
More typical Obama foreign policy, while he has no problem rushing to the aide of a wannabe dictator, he has no time for the British PM.
Got any reset buttons left?Quote:
Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable
By David Hughes Last updated: September 24th, 2009
The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
And here I thought that Obama's goal was to restore the respect of other countries for the USA and the Office of the President.
I guess that his METHOD for doing that is to snub your allies and grovel to your enemies.
To insult democratic leaders and embrace dictators and tyrants.
To give power to despots who flout the laws of their own countries, but throw legitimate democratic political movements that are looking for honest representative government under the bus.
To disarm his country and his allies unilaterally while kowtowing to the demands of enemies who invade other countries at whim.
I guess he thinks that insults and undermining his allies are the way to build respectful relationships...
And some people thought that Bush was an insult to the Office of POTUS. He never turned his back on an ally in favor of an enemy.
Disgusting.
Brent Bozell made an interesting observation this morning...Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Obama is all about Obama.Quote:
Here's something interesting that we found. Kudos to my colleague Dan Gainor who found this one. Here is the ultimate difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan never used the first person singular, he always talked about the first person plural. We, we, we, we. Barack Obama, how many times in 41 major speeches do you think he has used the word "I" or "me."
DOOCY: Forty-one?
BOZELL: One thousand one hundred ninety-eight times.
This is just too funny...
OK, now how long before Obama throws Zelaya under the bus? After all, what would an association with a loony conspiracy theorist do to his image? Or will we just have a new look for the State Department?Quote:
It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.
"We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.
http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress...nfoil_hat1.jpg
Steve,
Adding to your citation from Bozell, I heard an interesting statistic the other day. I can neither confirm nor deny the statistic. I am just repeating it.
During his entire 8 years in office, Bush had 14 sit-down interviews with people from the media.
Bill Clinton, who everyone knows was something of a media hog, only had 6 sit-down interviews while he was in office.
To date, with only 9 months in office, Obama has had 66 sit-down interviews with the media.
So far.
Yeah... Obama is all about Obama.
Elliot
Update : The Congressional Research Service (pdf) report can be found at this site...
World 4 Honduras: Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues
Hello again, tom:
From the report:
-------------------
V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?
Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.
However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.
-------------------------------------
Hence - coup de tat.
excon
Yep, and the Honduras has acknowledged that the military overstepped when they removed him from the country. However, his removal from office was constitutional and the constitution and the separation of powers remains intact as does the planned, Democratic election. Hence, no coup d'etat.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But I'm still wondering when Obama throws Zelaya under the bus - or when he starts wearing a tinfoil hat of his own.
Ex what is being investigated is if the expatriation of Zelaya was constitutional... not his removal from office.
Hello SteveQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So you say.
excon
I know you're getting us confused again, but that's the facts. It IS true.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Didn't I read somewhere about Zelaya claiming that Israeli (go figure) mercenaries are trying to poison him with gas and are attempting to kill him?
Yep... I think it's tinfoil hat time again...
http://t3flange.com/tinfoil-hat.jpg
Elliot
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, when I'm going hot and heavy against the THREE of you, I get a name wrong or two... But, my left jab rarely misses.
excon
Yeah, I bet you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Oopppssss!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, then, I guess I DID read it.
Thanks Steve.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM. |