Honduran Coup / Not Coup Discussion
As a lazy way of not generating real content myself, but also because it’s helping me wrap my head around recent events in Honduras, if you haven’t read Jack’s piece on on Honduras you should. But also interesting is a discussion in the comments section of a post at Tom Palmer’s blog. More than a week old by now, but worth reading.
No Brad, not foir debate. As the article I posted in the first TCP link indicated:
http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html
the army admits it broke the law by throwing out the elected leader of the country, making a non elected leader the new president. The reason for this? Because the president wanted to take a nonbinding referendum on the need for a constitutional assembly.
The judges ruled this was illegal, and by doing so they made law since nonbinding referendums are not violations of any constitution.
The army has since proceeded to throw out an elected city mayor,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/coup-%E2%80%9Cpresident%E2%80%9D-installs-nephew-%E2%80%9Cmayor%E2%80%9D-honduras%E2%80%99-second-city
take over major radio and tv
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iapa-vice-president-covers-press-censorship-honduras-update-iapa-responds
and violently suppress any supportive protests
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/what-cowardly-honduras-coup-lost-today
.
Terror itself has been authorized by the congress, in violation of the constitution:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/honduras-coup-congress-cancels-five-basic-liberties
This is not about constitution, this is about contras. These army guys come from the Reagan/Negroponte time when they were helping fight the Sandinistas through the US’s illegal proxy war which was funded by Iran weapons sales and drugs. This touches on the dirty history of “The Enterprise”
Essential watching ahead:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430
These pitbulls were trained to attack leftists, so when a leftist gets elected, they can’t help but attack him.
As I wrote in the other thread, when presidents break the law and violate their constitution, does the army in America point bayonets at the guy and throw him out?
No, this is a silly debate which is only being had because if one labels the reality as the reality, it will cost Honduras millions of dollars because much of its aid was incumbent on it remaining a democracy.
And it ain’t any more. Pure and simple.
Comment by thimbles — 7/7/2009 @ 9:25 pm
And in that comment thread you posted, Tom Palmer is being a prick.
Comment by thimbles — 7/7/2009 @ 9:34 pm
I think the better question is: ought they?
I more or less agree with your read on things here Thimbles, but I do think it’s a little more complicated. What happens when an executive disregards a direct edict from the two other branches of government and acts proactively against it because, essentially, his interpretation of the law differs from theirs? One could argue that his interpretation is the right one, of course, but in a rule of law system, that’s almost beside the point.
Comment by Brad — 7/8/2009 @ 12:20 am
The answer is no.
You use the legal system and charge him with a violation of law in which he is then impeached and arrested if he was found by the courts to have violated the law.
It was not the police which arrested him, nor the legal system which charged him. He was not impeached. He was picked up by the military and flung out off the country.
That’s a coup, plain and simple. The military violated the law when they threw the elected leader out of the country and picked a new one.
You don’t use the military to deal with civilian matters, you use police. This was still a civilian matter that should have been handled through legal process.
The powers that be are afraid of using the civilian process because they know they don’t have the support of the law or the majority of the people, so they kicked out the Sandinista trash to go live with Daniel Ortega.
When right wing, paramilitary friendly, president of Columbia, Uribe is calling it a coup, really we shouldn’t be debating the labels.
Comment by thimbles — 7/8/2009 @ 4:19 am
It’s off topic but it’s an interesting story of life under Army control in that part of the world, Mexico to be specific:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/we-bring-fear
Comment by thimbles — 7/8/2009 @ 5:58 am
Thimbles, keeping in mind that I am in agreement with your basic position that Mel Z’s ouster was an illegal act, a coup of sorts (which I only qualify because it was a multi-agency coordinated coup, not merely a military coup), I still think you are vastly oversimplifying the issue, particularly in your understatements as to Zelaya’s actions preceeding the coup. Your wording choices go further than even giving short shrift to his behavior, you sound like an outright apologist.
Zelaya violated the law. He attempted an illegal referendum, was called on it, attempted to call it seomething else, was called on it, ordered teh military to hold the ballots, ordered the militayr to conduct the referendum anyway, and utlized the threat of an angry mob to coerce the military to release the ballots to him and his supporters.
Beyond that, you want to ignore the practical intent: Zelayas’ pretty obvious purpose was to begin the process towards term limit removal and executive authority, and the path he chose to pursue it was an illegal one.
Also, the Honduran military is hardly the organization it was in the 80’s. The influence they wield, and their willingness to act in an extraconstitutional manner is very low; thus their explicit need for legislative and Supreme Court cover. I mention this for two reason: To emphasize that the military is but one player in the illegal acts committed here, and as a sort of side play suggestion that this line of argument, complete with Negroponte links and Iran-Contra references, makes you sound less than objective.
Lastly, you called someone a prick, and you know how I feel about that.
BUT. It was still illegal, it was still an extra-constitutional coup, the gogvernments post-coup actions reveal their disprespect for the process, they will and should suffer internatonal condemnation, they have created an inappropriate and unfortunate martyr out of a buffoon, they have played into the Chavez narrative, and the Right Wing commentators, and libertarians to boot, are massively misguided in defending the coup regime. I think we can agree on most of that, even if I do take exception to the prism through which you view and present your arguments.
Comment by Jack — 7/8/2009 @ 5:46 pm
No, I’m not an apologist, the truth is I was occupied with other subjects and had no idea who Zelaya was until I heard about the coup. So I researched it with as open a mind as I could and I what I saw was that he had a desire to change articles in constitution, but his proposed actions did not affect the constitution. The court rejected the referendum decrees using the language “consultation with the public” but not the final one stating his desire for a non-binding poll. Then the court ruled the referendum illegal, making law, and ordered the army not to distribute the ballots, violating separation of powers where the executive has command of the army.
So my question was, why is the judicial wing making such a big deal over a non-binding poll attempted by a supposedly unpopular president? Let him do the poll and watch it fail if he’s so adamant about it. The poll isn’t going to change the constitution.
But no, instead the elites panicked. The army would rather break the law and follow the orders of the judges, would rather break the law and throw the elected leader of the country into Costa Rica, the congress would rather invalidate the old leader and support military and judical over reach, than to do the president’s little poll.
I’m no apologist, but there’s little to sympathize with on the other side. They didn’t like the leftist, so they threw him out.
As the top lawyer of the army admits
That Honduras was the base for Nicaraguan contras and was involved in the human rights violations at the time, overseen by Honduran Ambassador Negroponte, is not irrelevant history.
And I’m sorry I called the douchebag a prick. I should have been more careful with my language, as maybe he should have been when he replied:
http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/06/29/spinning-when-a-president-who-seeks-dictatorial-powers-in-an-illegal-move-is-removed-by-the-congress-and-by-the-supreme-court-is-it-a-military-coup/
“Zelaya’s militants demonstrated after their Fuehrer was removed”
“You and others think that when “Der Fuehrer spricht,” it’s the voice of “the nation.” ”
“you sad and pathetic little cheerleader for dictatorship. ”
“It’s an old tradition that Der Fuehrer is the people: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer is your motto. We know where that leads.”
Yuck, it goes on with the personal invective we all detest, “if you take the side of legal process versus extralegal military coup process, you’re a nazi.”
If people want not to be called names and labeled, they should avoid them. Tom Palmer did not.
At any rate, we agree that the military deposing and exiling a democratically elected leader was not the proper action of a constitutional democracy. Maybe he is an unpopular buffoon and maybe the army isn’t comprised of the goon squads of the past -we should all admit our lack of on the ground knowledge-, but one has to ask if he is an unpopular buffoon then what are the elites so afraid of, and if the army isn’t comprised of past goons then why don’t they act like it?
Comment by thimbles — 7/8/2009 @ 9:08 pm
We are not particularly far off in our assessment of the overall situation. I differ with you on your insistance on interpreting Zelaya’s manuevers in the absolute most positive and innocent light, parsing the language of his actions as favorably as possible, and assigning harmless motives to them in a way that stretches credulity. The name of the referendum shifted numerous times, with each time Zelays making a specific attempt to grant cover for an illegal action. The court ruled it illegal, and if that consitutes “making law” then your perceptoin of a court’s role is seriously skewed. The ordering of the army to not distribute is hardly a seperation of powers problem, and is analgous to our courts at multiple levels, ordering agency not under their obvious pervue to take no action or cease an action. Had Bush attempted at a similar action using the military after a specific Supreme Court declaration, you ould be screaming “rule of law”, but you grant Zelaya far more leeway. Why is that?
As for why the government did not allow the referndum: two reasons, it was illegal, and they honestly feared it would be rigged. Which does not justify the coup, but does justify intervention.
It is possible, (and absolutely correct IMHO) to see Zelaya as a manipulative leftist populist of convenience with authoritarian ambitions illegally manuevering the state into unconstitutional actions using his power as executive and control of the military, while simultaneously seeing the actions of the legislature/court/military as an illegal and incredible overreaction that rises to the definition of a coup, particularly in light of their post coup crack down. These are not mutually exclussive assessments, and they are both accurate.
I argued with Dr Palmer at first from the “its a coup” side of the argument because of his wanton disregard for the facts in the matter and apoligia for the current regime, but I am happier arguing on this site, where I am less likely to be accused of being a sad little cheerleader for dictatorships”, so I have to come at you “from the right” I guess.
Comment by Jack — 7/8/2009 @ 9:48 pm
Bush did violate rulings of the supreme court in regards to detainee tribunals (which has yet to cease under Obama) and he overwrote the laws passed by congress and the senate through signing statements (which was recently emulated by Obama
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123688875576610955.html
).
In my posting history I objected to many actions of the Bush administration and I am convinced that their performance in two elections was illegitimate and inflated.
I’ve never called for a military take over during all of their lawbreaking and I’ve even expressed worry when it seemed the Joint Chiefs of staff were the one obstacle to Cheney’s desire to attack Tehran, because, though the circumstances appeared to demand it, the military should not override civilian authority.
I’ve called for the legal authorities to investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials many times and I believed if there ever was a case for impeachment, the rampant torture and surveillance executed at the authority of the highest office was the one.
So you probably would not be hearing from me had Honduras had begun a perfectly legal impeachment procedure on the basis that the executive had violated a ruling of the supreme court, which again I have to say was a suspect case considering the court had not ruled on PCM-020-2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya
But, as we all know, that is not what happened and what has happened since has been a consolidation of power under Zelaya’s opposition against the segments of the public which support him.
No, Micheletti is not a general but neither was Carmona in Venezuela in 2002, and that was a coup by all accounts.
People seem to be quibbling about whether you can call it a “military coup” when the military has not taken control. In the case of Honduras, it’s a silly debate. Yes a coup has taken place, yes it was executed by the military, so okay – if people really want to quibble – we can strike the word military and just call it a coup with the assistance of the military… because what we can’t say is that this has been a legal exchange of power under the direction of a democratic process.
I am also admitting that I don’t know if Zelaya was a manipulative jerk or not, I’m not on the ground and I hear a lot from the english speakers with computer access, but my knowledge of the situation is limited which I believe is true of most people commenting on the blogs.
The only criteria I really can make my judgment upon right now is the conduct of the opposition which has been deeply offensive to those supporting “rule of law” and the democratic process. And again, I have to ask why was this reaction necessitated? Because of a nonbinding poll gauging public support for a constitutional assembly?
Really? What is the fear about?
You say:
First, the supreme court did not allow previous referendums based on an overt interpretation of law. It is difficult to see how a referendum, which turned into a non-binding poll, really violates the law.
Second, the supreme court ordered the army not on the basis of a case ruling, PCM-020-2009 not receiving such, but as a secondary command overruling civilian command of the military. That is a separation of powers issue.
Third, when you say that they should not hold the referendum because it may be rigged, if you say you have that little faith in the Honduran ability to conduct tallies of its electorate, then what is the point of Hondurans having the vote at all? “The government” should be afraid of democratic elections because elections can be just as easily rigged, therefore they should be done away with.
Is that the road we want to head down?
I would prefer people conduct the process and fight to make the process open and transparent than to be so afraid of the process that they end up banning the process altogether because they don’t trust it.
Cheerleader. :P
Comment by thimbles — 7/8/2009 @ 11:53 pm
Your entire top four paragraphs are part of my point: when illegal presidential action comes from the right, you are rabidly on the attack, but obviously illegal actions with rather apparent nefarious intent from Zelaya get a COMPLETE (oh god I’m using caps) pass from you. The most you are willing to say is “I don’t know”. You parse the legal interpretations completely from Zelaya’s perspective, bending and contorting to define his actions as resonable and legal. the Surpeme court had ruled, Zelaya minced the wording of the poll/referendum, the legislature passed a new law, the SC had not yet had time to rule on it. On this you rest the legality of his actions. And while aggressively defending him on this, you carefully ignore his other actions, particularly the confrontation at the Air Force base with his mob of followers.
Your suggestion that fearing this poll would be rigged leads us directly into “then what is the point of Hondurans having the vote at all? “The government” should be afraid of democratic elections because elections can be just as easily rigged, therefore they should be done away with.
” is patently absurd and a fall dichotomy. THIS poll had evidence supporting the fear, look at where the ballots orginated, and how Zelaya intended to carry it out, just for starters. Saying that one doubts the honesty intentions and pointing to concerns aobut a poll is hardly a condemnation of democratic process as a whole, as you seem to want to paint this objection.
Comment by Jack — 7/9/2009 @ 8:44 am
Good lord my spelling and grammar deteriorated badly there.
Comment by Jack — 7/9/2009 @ 8:45 am
The most I am willing to say is the most I can say because really I don’t know.
Maybe Zelaya is a bad guy who wants nothing better than to summon Beelzubub through a constitutional assembly brought about buy a nefarious non-binding poll which was to be distributed and likely rigged by the army which recently through him out of the country in an act of insurrection.
But I honestly don’t see the evidence for that.
I’ve seen lots of evidence for the right wing lawbreaking, and I’ve heard a lot of noise about the heights of Zelaya’s nasty ambitions, which are only matched by the heights of his unpopularity, mainly from the folks who use “you’re a nazi” as an argument.
But I haven’t seen much evidence, and it’s not because I haven’t been looking.
But at least through our discussion we seemed to have come to an answer to the title of this thread. It’s a Honduran coup. The debatable question is whether Zelaya was asking for it.
And so far my take is no. What he did does not seem so radical to me on its face.
Comment by thimbles — 7/9/2009 @ 10:31 am
This has been an interesting read the last week or so:
http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/
Comment by thimbles — 7/9/2009 @ 10:47 am
There goes the first 20 million.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/71591.html
Some say Michelletti’s strategy is to negotiate and stall until the momentum to reverse the coup drops and world attention is focused on other things.
If that’s the case, it’s going to become an expensive strategy as more aid gets dropped because of democratic ambiguity.
If I were in Honduras with an unpopular president at my border and the international community at my neck to restore him, I’d negotiate a snap election in which Zelaya could return, run in, and lose.
What a clusterfuck.
Comment by thimbles — 7/10/2009 @ 11:55 pm
Reporting in from telesur seems to indicate there may be some relevant history after all from the Contra era:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/07/micheletti-tried-change-honduran-constitution-1985
It’s from telesur, so it may be as biased as all hell, but it might be worth looking into as well.
Comment by thimbles — 7/11/2009 @ 12:37 pm
Wait, you’re saying that the present Honduran leadership should let Zelaya run for a second term in ecplicit violation of the constitution, a constitution that delineates the removal of citzenship from anyone seeking or callilng for such a thing, when the November candidates have already been selected in their primary-like process, and thus giving Zleaya exactly what he wnated from this process. Gee, and yhou wonder why some find your opinion biased ;)
Comment by Jack — 7/12/2009 @ 7:37 pm
I was suggesting an election based on the current term of the sitting president, who is currently sitting in Costa Rica or somewhere. I was not suggesting an extension of term.
Basically, what I was trying to say is, if the people don’t want him and the international community wants the restoration of democracy, conducting a snap election, a recall election in the spirit of Gray Davis, as a condition of letting Zelaya return might be a nice way to settle things.
In other news, or lack of, it appears telesur reporters have been detained and will be thrown out of the country.
Comment by thimbles — 7/13/2009 @ 11:53 am
You may not of heard this from the Honduran “Foreign Minister” Enrique Ortez:
See, before I didn’t have any sympathy for the coup regime, but now I pity their diplomacy.
Comment by thimbles — 7/16/2009 @ 1:43 am
Zelaya is back in the country:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090922_president_zelaya_and_the_audacity_of_action/
Granted sanctuary at the Brazilian Embassy.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3444/seven-million-hondurans-under-house-arrest-micheletti-writes-democracy
http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2009/09/honduran-stand-off.html
Comment by thimbles — 9/23/2009 @ 12:39 pm
Folks should be proud of the results:
and the role played by the United States:
It looks like a new day in America/latin American relations.
Comment by thimbles — 11/1/2009 @ 12:49 pm
Argh, forgot the darn link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/americas/31honduras.html
Comment by thimbles — 11/1/2009 @ 12:51 pm
This is still going on?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-honduras11-2009dec11,0,6690516.story
http://smart-products.tmcnet.com/news/2009/12/28/4551004.htm
What? Why would the international community not recognize these elections as legitimate? After all, the whole rationale for throwing the elected leader out was to preserve the integrity of elections.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/25/the_sham_elections_in_honduras
Oh, that.
But what about the big agreements negociated with Hilary and the state department etc…?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/01/democracy_loses_the_honduras_election
Final result?
The Honduran political elite are reading this outcome as an unconditional victory and, above all, as a license to return to politics as usual, as though nothing had happened. That will mean a return to the usual tooth-and-nail fight between factions of the well-heeled oligarchy — each cheered on by segments of the impoverished populace — for the spoils of a weak state. With such a political style and such a lack of political leadership — both made obvious in this episode — it is no wonder that Honduras is dead last on the fight against corruption in Central America, according to the figures just released by Transparency International.
A familiar tune, played by many countries before and after.
Comment by thimbles — 12/29/2009 @ 9:36 pm