Quote:

---

I trust my SENSES...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 !!!!!!!

---

Hello again, tom:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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 occured afterwards, it would not have been one, but that's an if.

---

Now THAT is the first viable position that I have heard on this subject... it actually addresses the facts and the law, not opinions.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I don't understand... He WAS elected in the first place. All he did was SAY that he was going to run again...

---

First of all, he was term-limited out. Second, he began a movement to create an illegal vote that violated that term limit.

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

---

Hello again, El:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno. I'm not convinced that simply using strong armed tactics to GET ON BALLOT, so the people can VOTE their mind in a FREE election, is a coup.

Nope. I'm not convinced at all. You're gonna 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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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?

---

Hello again, El:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

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

---

What he SHOULD have done was lobby for a change to the Constitution. That is how law abiding citizens work within the law.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

---

Hello again, El:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

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

---

He grabbed power ILLEGALLY to run for an office for which he was not legally elligible. That's all that matters.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

He grabbed power ILLEGALLY to run for an office for which he was not legally elligible. That's all that matters.

---

Hello again, El:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Not at all.. What MATTERS is that the military conducted a COUP instead of just sending a couple cops to arrest him.

---

And the legal difference is...

There is none.

Quote:

---

If they'd arrested him and thrown him in jail, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

---

They DID arrest him and throw him in jail. But it was military personnel that did it, not cops.

And again, the difference is...

There is none.

Quote:

---

Amazing... You always forget the IMPORTANT parts of the discussions. That's OK. I'm here to fill in the gaps.

Excn

---

Still waiting for you to fill in a gap. Or FIND one, for that matter.

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.

---

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.

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