Honduran Coup: Legit or Not?

[Sins of the Fleche]

While I know Jacko's death has dominated the news outlets for the past few days, I was wondering about people's opinions on the coup in Honduras that happened this week.

My understanding of the situation was that the President of Honduras was attempting to override the Honduran Supreme Court's order for him to not seek re-election. In Honduras, a President can only serve one term, but the newly-ousted President, Manuel Zelaya, was attempting to initiate a constitutional referendum to revoke this limit on terms. The military and the Honduran congress didn't like that, so they carried out the first coup in Latin America since the 1990's. The coup leaders have handed over power to Roberto Micheletti, who the Honduran Congress named to lead the transition government until regularly scheduled elections in 7 months.

President Obama, President Hugo Chavez, and most of the OAS have decried the coup and have slammed Honduras in their press statements.

Personally, I think the coup is never a legitimate means of correcting political imbalances, but I agree with the assumed goal of the coup, which was to maintain the legal system of government and attempt to block another Chavez-style leader from rising to power (this assumes that the coup's intentions are what they say they are and appear to be so far). Just curious as to what others think.

[Bayou Bum]

A victory for the rule of law. I don't see it as a coup. A coup is an overthrow of the government by use of military force. This is a case of the military enforcing the constitution under the direction of the congress and supreme court. I see it more as an impeachment with Zelaya refusing to leave office. Once he was removed, control was turned back over to the government.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

A victory for the rule of law. I don't see it as a coup. A coup is an overthrow of the government by use of military force. This is a case of the military enforcing the constitution under the direction of the congress and supreme court. I see it more as an impeachment with Zelaya refusing to leave office. Once he was removed, control was turned back over to the government.

it would only be enforcing the constitution if his original term was over or he was legally removed from office. it was not, nor was he voted out (yet).

[fencerchica]

From what I've read so far, the Honduran military acted autonomously, storming the presidential residence and taking Zelaya into custody several hours before the Honduran Congress voted him out of office. Sure sounds like a coup to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/wo...9honduras.html

[Hauptman]

By definition a coup is never legitimate, but let's move on.

Had the president done anything illegal to justify even an impeachment? I don't think so. I don't know all the details, but it sounds like he was encouraging a legitimate constitutional referendum; what's wrong with that?

Was his term already over when this occurred? Did he refuse to step down when it ended? I don't think so.

If there was opposition to his referendum then they should have worked to vote it down, and not forcibly removed him from office (and threw him out of the country!).

The only violation of the law that I see came from the military, and anyone who supported the coup.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

From what I've read so far, the Honduran military acted autonomously, storming the presidential residence and taking Zelaya into custody several hours before the Honduran Congress voted him out of office. Sure sounds like a coup to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/wo...9honduras.html

Maybe you examine all the facts and not just the first paragraph of one article. The military prevented a coup by Zelaya. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, the military made the arrest hours before the illegal voting was to take place. What were they to do? Were they to let Zelaya conduct an illegal vote and elect him president for life? Just how would you propose removing a president from office that didn't want to leave. If congress had impeached Bush and ordered him removed from office and he refused, should the military remove him?

[Sins of the Fleche]

While Zelaya hadn't done anything illegal yet, he was in the process of defying the Honduran Supreme Court's earlier rulings about presidential terms. He was using a legal process to change the constitution, but his critics in Honduras pointed out that pretty much the main reason he wanted to get the constitution changed was to simply extend his tenure in office.

Not illegal in the word of the law, but if that's true, then it seems suspicious to me.

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

Maybe you examine all the facts and not just the first paragraph of one article. The military prevented a coup by Zelaya. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, the military made the arrest hours before the illegal voting was to take place. What were they to do? Were they to let Zelaya conduct an illegal vote and elect him president for life? Just how would you propose removing a president from office that didn't want to leave. If congress had impeached Bush and ordered him removed from office and he refused, should the military remove him?

Maybe you should look up the word "impeach". And as I noted, it seems that the Honduran military acted prior to the Honduran Congress' vote to depose, which Zelaya was not given an opportunity to accept or refuse. The Honduran Supreme Court announced, after the fact, that the military acted in obedience to its orders, but why did it wait until it was a fait accompli to say so? Bizarre. I agree that Zelaya seems to be an unsavory character. I disagree that subterfuge and the undermining of the rule of law are appropriate responses.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

By definition a coup is never legitimate, but let's move on.

Had the president done anything illegal to justify even an impeachment? I don't think so. I don't know all the details, but it sounds like he was encouraging a legitimate constitutional referendum; what's wrong with that?

Yes. By their constitution, only congress can call for a constitutional referendum, not the president. You are right, you don't know all the details. What is wrong with it is that he doesn't have the power to do so. The congress said no and the supreme court declared it unconstitutional and yet he continued. What were they to do, let him hold an illegal vote in which only his supporters could vote and then declare himself president for life?

Was his term already over when this occurred? Did he refuse to step down when it ended? I don't think so.

So you propose they do nothing. It is a good thing Nixon resigned. If he had wanted to, you would have let him remain in office.

If there was opposition to his referendum then they should have worked to vote it down, and not forcibly removed him from office (and threw him out of the country!).

Work to vote down an illegal referendum? You have got to be kidding! If I have a referendum that Obama should be removed from office and executed, would you support it?
After all, you could have voted it down.

The only violation of the law that I see came from the military, and anyone who supported the coup.

Defending the constitution is violating the law? The president is the only one who violated the law. The constitution, congress, and the supreme court followed the law. The military had to forcibly remove him from office and then per their constitution, the installed an interim president until the elections.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Maybe you should look up the word "impeach". And as I noted, it seems that the Honduran military acted prior to the Honduran Congress' vote to depose, which Zelaya was not given an opportunity to accept or refuse. The Honduran Supreme Court announced, after the fact, that the military acted in obedience to its orders, but why did it wait until it was a fait accompli to say so? Bizarre. I agree that Zelaya seems to be an unsavory character. I disagree that subterfuge and the undermining of the rule of law are appropriate responses.

I know what impeach means and I didn't say he was impeached. The only subterfuge and undermining the rule of law were by Zelaya. If you believe that the president should have unlimited powers and do whatever he/she wants, then say so, but for God's sake, please learn the facts before you respond and use your own mind instead of blindly drinking the Obama coolaid.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

So you propose they do nothing. It is a good thing Nixon resigned. If he had wanted to, you would have let him remain in office.


Defending the constitution is violating the law? The president is the only one who violated the law. The constitution, congress, and the supreme court followed the law. The military had to forcibly remove him from office and then per their constitution, the installed an interim president until the elections.

Don't be ridiculous, or rude for that matter.

If you say that the referendum was really unconstitutional, I'll take your word for it because I haven't read any definitive clarification on that point anywhere.

But I can guarantee that their constitution does not allow for the president to be removed at gun point. There was no due-process to remove him, as I'm sure their constitution requires.

This was an illegal action although possibly in response to an illegal action, but that doesn't change the fact that the coup was illegitimate.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Don't be ridiculous, or rude for that matter.

If you say that the referendum was really unconstitutional, I'll take your word for it because I haven't read any definitive clarification on that point anywhere.

But I can guarantee that their constitution does not allow for the president to be removed at gun point. There was no due-process to remove him, as I'm sure their constitution requires.

This was an illegal action although possibly in response to an illegal action, but that doesn't change the fact that the coup was illegitimate.

The supreme court and congress ordered him to be removed to prevent a takeover. Just what would you propose, going to the UN? It wasn't a coup and it wasn't illegitimate. And I guarantee that the constitution does allow for the president to be removed at gun point, just as ours does, if the president breaks the law. Are you just upset that they didn't say Please first?

[Sins of the Fleche]

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the Honduran Supreme Court or Congress ordered a coup. From the news coverage I've read (Associated Press mainly), the Congress affirmed and supported the coup after it began (they may have encouraged it before the fact, but that's not public knowledge one way or another yet).

So, the other 2 branches of the Honduran government have supported the coup this far, but I don't think they ordered Zelaya out of office, they merely wanted him to stand down at the end of his term and not seek a (currently) unconstitutional re-election.

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

The supreme court and congress ordered him to be removed to prevent a takeover. Just what would you propose, going to the UN? It wasn't a coup and it wasn't illegitimate. And I guarantee that the constitution does allow for the president to be removed at gun point, just as ours does, if the president breaks the law. Are you just upset that they didn't say Please first?

Many Latin American constitutions allow for the movement to a rapid state of emergency where the military can move in and declare martial law. I don't know of one where the constitution allows for the military to declare a state of emergency in order to overthrow the president. I'm not sure where it says in the U.S. constitution that the military can remove the president if it thinks the president is breaking the law. Please point that out. Finally, the way to remove the president without pointing a gun at him is to just ignore him. If the military supports the new legitimately elected new president, there's not much the old president can do about it. Sit in his office and issue orders that no one listens to?

Tomas

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by Sins of the Fleche

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the Honduran Supreme Court or Congress ordered a coup. From the news coverage I've read (Associated Press mainly), the Congress affirmed and supported the coup after it began (they may have encouraged it before the fact, but that's not public knowledge one way or another yet).

So, the other 2 branches of the Honduran government have supported the coup this far, but I don't think they ordered Zelaya out of office, they merely wanted him to stand down at the end of his term and not seek a (currently) unconstitutional re-election.

Wrong!

I give up! I wish people on this board would actually learn the facts before writing and not just regurgitate Obama's talking points. The military was acting under orders and immediately turned over control to congress. You will eventually learn the truth and being liberals, I expect you will still refuse to acknowledge it. All I can say more on the subject is God bless the people of Honduras and my prayers are with them and their struggle to maintain democracy.

[Sins of the Fleche]

"Later the Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president, who had been due to leave office next January."---BBC News (article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm)

From the way I read it, the Honduran Court said it ordered the coup after it had already occurred, so maybe they did actually order the President out of office, but I find it a little odd that didn't issue a public declaration during the coup. I'm not saying that they didn't order it, just that I don't see definitively where they did yet.

[Inquartata]

Well, many countries began their ascent to democracy in very similar ways. And our Founding Fathers affirmed that such things might well turn out to be necessary in the future even of the nation they began.

Let me give you a hypothetical parallel calculated to play on the beliefs of some of you.

It's 2003. The polls say that President George Bush is facing a likely ouster by John Kerry, who has avoided making any of the mistakes that he in fact made and is running strong. President Bush, meanwhile, really is the antidemocratic election-stealing would-be autarch many fervently believed him to be, so, with the help of the Republican-controlled Congress and the "packed" Supreme Court he begins the process of Constitutional amendment to extend the Executive's term of office to 20 years, retroactively. The processes he uses, while dangerous and odious to our democratic ideals, are nevertheless all strictly legal ones. He makes no misstep or overreach ( hard to believe, I know ). It looks as though he is going to succeed, and will be able to retain office and render the coming election unnecessary.

The populace is largely against this, and believes that it is the beginning of dictatorship. The military agrees, despite Bush being their Commander-in-Chief.

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?

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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?

Your hypothetical scenario is not a parallel to the situation in Honduras, so your dilemma can't be validly compared. If I understood you correctly, you're arguing that in a case where the military believes that the legal system, having been given the opportunity to take its course, has gone astray, perhaps the military has an obligation to act to defend the Constitution.

The point that I and many other posters have made was that the leadership of the Honduran coup do not appear to have given the legal system this opportunity to operate, prior to taking action. And from the post facto approvals issued by the Honduran Congress and Honduran Supreme Court, it sounds as though Zelaya could have been removed within the rule of law but the military jumped the gun in staging the coup too early.

So to return to your posited scenario, sounds to me like the dreaded straw man has made an appearance...

[Inquartata]

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?

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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?

No. You're skirting the central point of the entire argument, and I won't fall for engaging with a straw man.