Honduran Coup: Legit or Not?

[Inquartata]

How convenient...

Well, I expect we all know the answer anyway.

[Sins of the Fleche]

[snip] Do you want them to stand by and let this happen, merely because Bush is using "legal" methods to accomplish a frightening end? Or do you wish them to defend your freedom and intervene?

When you put it that way, then I can very much see why this coup, if it follows through on its assumed purpose, could very well be a defense of democracy rather than a suspension of it.

That being said, I think it could also set a dangerous precedent, depending on how the military and government handles itself over the next 7 months.

[Inquartata]

Definitely.

One of the main failings of the "coup d'etat" model is that those ejecting a bad leader often feel most comfortable replacing him with someone with whom they are very familiar. This usually amounts to one of their own...which historically has had a poor record of success.

It COULD work out OK. An imagined coup in this country might install, let us say, Colin Powell as President, "temporarily", no doubt. We could do worse than many of our top generals. But it would still be a very undemocratic result. Do they call for immediate elections? Mandate a "reasonable" period of time for things to cool off, during which time the wrong man might consolidate power and leave us worse off than before?

Attempts to choose a civilian President might be just as problematic. Do you install a Democrat? A Republican? An Independent? Where do you find a Cincinnatus these days?

[Bayou Bum]

The processes he uses, while dangerous and odious to our democratic ideals, are nevertheless all strictly *** legal ***ones.

Do you want them to stand by and let this happen, merely because Bush is using *** "legal" *** methods to accomplish a frightening end?

ONE problem with your analogy is that you claim Bush used legal methods. Once again, this was not the case in Honduras.

[jeff]

While I know Jacko's death has dominated the news outlets for the past few days

Guys, you are all going about this with wrong assumptions.

Jacko's death is distracting everybody from the Iran situation. Honduras, being much less important in world politics, is paired with the death of Billy Mays.

Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Karl Malden's passings are still available for other upheavals.

[Tomas N]

Definitely.
One of the main failings of the "coup d'etat" model is that those ejecting a bad leader often feel most comfortable replacing him with someone with whom they are very familiar. This usually amounts to one of their own...which historically has had a poor record of success.

Most of the recent coups in Latin America have resulted in someone not currently in the military being assigned as the new president:

Ecuador 2000: Mahuad replaced by his VP, Gustavo Noboa Bejarano.
Venezuela 2002: Chavez replaced by chamber of commerce head Pedro Carmona.
Haiti 2004: Aristide replaced with Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre.
Honduras 2009: Zelaya replaced with Head of Congress Roberto Micheletti.

Generating far-fetched scenarios that compare political shenanigans in the U.S. with what's happening in Honduras now does not seem useful to me given the vastly different histories of the two countries.

Tomas

[Phaeton]

Which is all kind of funny because Chavez himself tried a coup in 1992. Looks like things worked out alright for him.

[Tomas N]

Which is all kind of funny because Chavez himself tried a coup in 1992. Looks like things worked out alright for him.

You're right. Chavez is in the interesting position of having been involved in two failed coups, one in which he tried to take power and one in which the military tried to remove him from power. Both failed.

[Hauptman]

Don't nitpick the details or the methods. Just replace Honduras with the US, and Zelaya with the hated despot Bush. Would you want him to be allowed to "steal" a permanent Presidency for himself, or not?

Except for the fact that Zelaya was nowhere near being able to steal a permanent presidency. He was pushing for a non-binding opinion poll regarding whether or not to hold a constititutional convention which he had no power to hold regardless of the poll.

Even if he did manage to pull off the poll, AND the constitutional convention, AND change the constitution to allow him to run for re-election, AND managed to get re-elected... all that would take years to accomplish and would have definitely missed this election cycle during which the poll was to be held. Honduras would have had a new president regardless.

This was all a political play by Zelaya, and the opposition fell for it. Do I sympathize with either side? No. All I know is that Zelaya is the legally elected president until the next election is held... unless there was an impeachment of some sort that no one is aware of?

[Inquartata]

Except for the fact that Zelaya was nowhere near being able to steal a permanent presidency. He was pushing for a non-binding opinion poll regarding whether or not to hold a constititutional convention which he had no power to hold regardless of the poll.

Well, if that's the case, fine.

You seem to know more about Honduran law than I do ( which wouldn't take much ).

Even if he did manage to pull off the poll, AND the constitutional convention, AND change the constitution to allow him to run for re-election, AND managed to get re-elected... all that would take years to accomplish and would have definitely missed this election cycle during which the poll was to be held. Honduras would have had a new president regardless.

This was all a political play by Zelaya,

What then was its purpose? Was he trying to get himself killed? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me...

and the opposition fell for it.

This "fall" somehow it doesn't seem to have benefited him very much.

[Hauptman]

Well, if that's the case, fine.

You seem to know more about Honduran law than I do ( which wouldn't take much ).



What then was its purpose? Was he trying to get himself killed? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me...





This "fall" somehow it doesn't seem to have benefited him very much.

I don't think he expected this result since he hadn't explicitly violated the law. He was pushing the limits to gain political traction; a very common tactic.

I don't think this outcome could have been easily predicted... an illegal coup to protect against an illegal overstepping of authority?

[Inquartata]

He was pushing the limits to gain political traction; a very common tactic.

What might this have accomplished for him?

I am having a hard time imagining what this fuzzy notion of "political traction" might have been expected to get done, in concrete terms...

What do you think he was trying to get out of it?

[Bayou Bum]

Except for the fact that Zelaya was nowhere near being able to steal a permanent presidency. He was pushing for a non-binding opinion poll regarding whether or not to hold a constititutional convention which he had no power to hold regardless of the poll.

Even if he did manage to pull off the poll, AND the constitutional convention, AND change the constitution to allow him to run for re-election, AND managed to get re-elected... all that would take years to accomplish and would have definitely missed this election cycle during which the poll was to be held. Honduras would have had a new president regardless.

This was all a political play by Zelaya, and the opposition fell for it. Do I sympathize with either side? No. All I know is that Zelaya is the legally elected president until the next election is held... unless there was an impeachment of some sort that no one is aware of?

You have got to be kidding! Are you actually stupid enough to think that Zelaya would voluntarily leave office if his illegal referendum gave him the victory. Not a chance, and Chavez would have backed him with Venezuela's troops. You don't have a f*cking clue what you are talking about and what is going on in Latin America. First, Chavez seized power in Venezuela. With his help, Ecuador and Bolivia changed their constitutions and are soon to fall to dictatorship. The Sandinistas are trying to change the constitution in Nicaragua so Ortega can remain in office for life. Chavez is trying to consolidate power throughout Latin America under his rule. He will use any means necessary, legal and illegal.

You are a fool for thinking that Zelaya was no where near being able to steal a permanent presidency. You are a bigger idiot for thinking that the vote would be nonbinding and he would peacefully step down at the end of his term. And to add further to your self admitted stupidity, Zelaya is not the legal president. If you don't believe it, I will accompany you to Honduras and prove it to you.

[Hauptman]

You have got to be kidding! Are you actually stupid enough to think that Zelaya would voluntarily leave office if his illegal referendum gave him the victory. Not a chance, and Chavez would have backed him with Venezuela's troops. You don't have a f*cking clue what you are talking about and what is going on in Latin America. First, Chavez seized power in Venezuela. With his help, Ecuador and Bolivia changed their constitutions and are soon to fall to dictatorship. The Sandinistas are trying to change the constitution in Nicaragua so Ortega can remain in office for life. Chavez is trying to consolidate power throughout Latin America under his rule. He will use any means necessary, legal and illegal.

You are a fool for thinking that Zelaya was no where near being able to steal a permanent presidency. You are a bigger idiot for thinking that the vote would be nonbinding and he would peacefully step down at the end of his term. And to add further to your self admitted stupidity, Zelaya is not the legal president. If you don't believe it, I will accompany you to Honduras and prove it to you.

Well, BB, don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity.

The referendum was to be held at the same time as the next presidential election. If the referendum was to allow him to run again, and he wasn't in the election, how would he get to be president again?

No one is saying it wasn't his intent to find a way to remain in power, but he was pursuing legitimate political means to do it. If you find his actions illegal then you send in the civilian authorities (the police), put him under arrest, and initiate legal proceedings.

You DON'T send in soldiers in the middle of the night, put him on a plane (still in his pajamas), and dump him over the nearest border!!!

Oh wait, you would do that..... sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Hauptman]

What might this have accomplished for him?

I am having a hard time imagining what this fuzzy notion of "political traction" might have been expected to get done, in concrete terms...

What do you think he was trying to get out of it?

Again, I'm not saying it wasn't Zelaya's intent to find a way to remain in power. If his poll received high votes in his favor it would provide him with significant traction in forcing a constitutional convention/referendum. No guarantees, of course, but it was his only legal option.

I believe that the legislature and courts, in a knee-jerk reaction, overstepped the law as badly as they're accusing Zelaya of doing. Given the political history down there it may be understandable, but breaking the law in an effort to defend rule-of-law sets a bad precedent.

[erik_blank]

Well, if that's the case, fine.
You seem to know more about Honduran law than I do ( which wouldn't take much ).

What then was its purpose? Was he trying to get himself killed? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me...

This "fall" somehow it doesn't seem to have benefited him very much.

Here is a quote from one of those 'leftist' sources that I have occasion to visit:

Leading up to the Coup

The key question leading up to the coup was whether to hold a referendum on June 28 – as Zelaya wanted – on organizing an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution.

One media analyst pointed out that while many major news outlets in the U.S., including the Miami Herald, Wall St. Journal and Washington Post said an impetus for the coup was specifically Zelaya’s plans for a vote to allow him to extend his term in office, the actual ballot question was to be: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

The article also links to a source document from an Honduras newspaper dated March 24th. While my spanish is not that great, I was able to slog through it and it seems to sonfirm the above quote....

So just what WAS the reason behind the immediate ouster of the Honduras president?
Was it that the president was trying to force a higher minimum wage that would have created a more expensive world for the global megacorps to run their manufacturing plants from?
Was it the possibility that Zelaya was trying to create a cabal that would have given him absolute dictatorial power?
Was it that little green aliens had abducted and replaced him with a robotic killer that was determined to eradicate all human life in the nations capitol?

One way or another, from what I have read and learned about the situation, I personally believe that this was indeed a Coup, and that as such it is by definition illegal.

Let's hope that we will not be going back to the bad old days of JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan in relations to our neighbors to the south. We do not need to revisit the CIA orchestrated overthrow of democratically elected governments in the pursuit of a 'stable' place of business for our US companies.

On a slightly (huge) tangent, I was recently re-reading an old Hergé Tintin book "The Broken Ear." (PDF Download HERE) I found it a very interesting comment on how the 'colonizing nations' and the U.S. are portrayed in it...

[Bayou Bum]

Well, BB, don't let the facts get in the way of your insanity.

The referendum was to be held at the same time as the next presidential election. If the referendum was to allow him to run again, and he wasn't in the election, how would he get to be president again?

No one is saying it wasn't his intent to find a way to remain in power, but he was pursuing legitimate political means to do it. If you find his actions illegal then you send in the civilian authorities (the police), put him under arrest, and initiate legal proceedings.

You DON'T send in soldiers in the middle of the night, put him on a plane (still in his pajamas), and dump him over the nearest border!!!

Oh wait, you would do that..... sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Being on your ignore list is the best thing I can think of. It is usually your ignorant arrogance that sets me off. You portray yourself as all knowing but your posts usually begin with "I don't think" which sums it up perfectly. And as for your signature about wisdom is the knowledge to know what you don't know; you should change it as you obviously don't have any wisdom.

As for facts; I have news for you, just because you worship Obama as the Messiah doesn't mean that he is and everything he or his media says is the truth. If you really want to know what is going on in Latin America, try going there and learning for yourself. While you beg the government to take more money away from the evil greedy rich in order to help those deemed needy, some of us evil greedy rich actually use our talents and money and go to places like Nicaragua and Honduras and help those trying to help themselves. I do apologize for my language earlier, but I have close friends in Honduras and this has hit me personally.

[Phaeton]

Things in Latin America are exactly that way because of an American legacy of protectionism and intervention. You can't tell me that after our fiascoes with any number of Latin American countries that radicalism doesn't make historical sense, and that continued US intervention is a good idea. People dislike us there enough already. We have sullied our hands too much in Latin American affairs.

That isn't to say that there were not major issues within South America itself. If I can talk about Venezuela once again: the Caracazo riots that shot Chavez to fame had real and legitimate sources. His coup attempt was one of many. If you look back in Venezuelan history you can identify where a lot of dislike of the wealthy comes from. You can look at the Punto Fijo and see where distrust of government comes in.

But we can't kid ourselves.

The current situation is our fault as much as it is anyone elses.

In an environment where it is open and public knowledge that we have repeatedly supported fascists and war criminals in Latin America, it would be pure idiocy to support the removal of Zelaya as president. That would be more for Chavez to point to. That would be more fodder for "21 Century Socialism." Go down to Venezuela. You'll see that the country is not what it was five years ago or ten years ago. With Chavez have come a number of internal problems. The benefits he brought (limited, such as the hospitals he constructed) are starting to slow down now that oil profits have dropped.

The ONE thing that's being used to keep Venezuela together and to keep Chavez a legitimate leader in Latin America is a constant presence of "threats" whether it is Europe, the States, the wealthy within the country or Jews.

Obama isn't the messiah. But he's a chance to stop applying the pressure that's holding a lot of South American leaders in a very strong position. There are internal problems that need to be solved. We aren't going to get rid of people we don't like by ourselves. But we don't need to. 21st century Socialism needs to be recognized as a bizzarre form of populism from within the countries and they need to deal with it.

And Latin America has the tools to make change when the time is right.

Note: I spoke mainly to Chavez because people view the him, as he views himself, the leader of the New Latin Left but it easily applies to Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua as well.

[Inquartata]

Again, I'm not saying it wasn't Zelaya's intent to find a way to remain in power. If his poll received high votes in his favor it would provide him with significant traction in forcing a constitutional convention/referendum. No guarantees, of course, but it was his only legal option.

But---legal option to accomplish what? What does he gain by getting a constitutional convention if he'll be long out of office even if it happens? To let the NEXT President jockey for a longer term of office?

Anyway, what I'm most surprised about is that we are not seeing speeches with Chavez going ballistic about it all in all the media...

[Hauptman]

But---legal option to accomplish what? What does he gain by getting a constitutional convention if he'll be long out of office even if it happens? To let the NEXT President jockey for a longer term of office?

Anyway, what I'm most surprised about is that we are not seeing speeches with Chavez going ballistic about it all in all the media...

It would open the door for him to run again in the following election. If nothing else it's a chance to stick it to his political opponents. Ego is surely motivation enough for a politician.

But you weren't expecting purely rational behavior from a bunch of politicians, were you?!