Now that the Honduran elections have passed — a week ago! — I would guess that we’d start to see the attention level paid to that small, poor country return to what it was before the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress deposed former President Manuel Zelaya, which means: not very much.
But there is still important news from Honduras, news which means a lot to those of us who want to see the ebbing tide of Chavez-style — or any style — socialism continue to ebb. La Gringa would rather talk about gardening, but that expatriate American sure is proud of her new country! She noted that the Honduran Congress complied with the US-backed Tegucigalpa-San José Accord which had the Congress vote on whether to restore former President Zelaya to power for the remainder of the term, and the Congress voted 111-14 to sustain Decree 141-2009, the act which removed Mr Zelaya. La Gringa wrote:
I am so proud of Honduras and Hondurans for having the huevos to stand up to the US, the OAS, Hugo Chávez, and the whole world. Honduras will be written about in the history books, not for having a successful coup d’etat, but for being the first country to successfully stand up to 21st century socialism. I hope that gives strength to people in other countries facing the same situation.
It should be noted, as was done by José Saavedra, President of the Congress, that the congressmen who voted against Mr Zelaya’s restoration so overwhelmingly were elected by the same people who voted in the 2005 election that seated Mr Zelaya in the first place. There are five political parties currently seated in the Honduran Congress, and out of 128 members — three missed the vote — only 14 voted to reinstate the ousted former President.
The Obama Administration, which initially favored the forced restoration of Mr Zelaya, has come to its senses, and urged Honduras’ neighbors to forget about the past, and get on with normal relations.
It was a “forced” ousting, ie, a coup, that preceded the current restoration, so the story has a good ending, which Obama rightly supports. Standing up to “21st century socialism” is fine, but dishonoring the rule of law, ie, deposing a duly elected leader by a coup, is not the appropriate way to do it, elections are, which is what finally transpired. So yes, three cheers to Honduras for that!
The Right too often tends to overlook that the means is just as important as the ends, thus they are danger to the rule of law in this respect.
And Perry continues to ignore the Constitution. This time, the Constitution of Honduras.
No, John, if you followed this story, then you would know that the Honduran legislature and supreme court trumped up a charge against Zelaya which was untrue. However, they finally came to their senses. Moreover, you continue to be ignorant of the role of our Constitution as an arbitrator of the law, not as another legislature.
Perry, if you weren’t so invested in twisting the facts to fit your preconceived totalitarian blueprint you might be able to tell a hawk from a handsaw. Zalaya is the dirty communist rat who tried to pull a Hugo Chavez in Honduras, and you know it.
Your continued efforts to peddle your idiot clap-trap is only confirmation you overvalue an outworn creed at the expense of your own integrity.
The Hondurans ought to drag Zalaya out of the Brazilian Embassy and show him the same appreciation the Italians showed Il Duce.
Yet again, Perry, you have adamantly refused to see the various times this blog put up the relevant Honduran Constitution sections on which the Honduran legislature and Honduran Supreme Court acted to oust the anti-constitutional Zaleya. And all to support your myth. Really, do try to use facts in your debates.
John, while I’m in full agreement with your comments, I do object to the use of “myth” to describe Perry’s fig leaf fairy tales, a small but important point.
I know “myth” is in common usage to indicate fictitious stories and made up fables, but it also has a more traditional meaning: the collected efforts of an ancient people to explain phenomena they didn’t understand. An honorable if flawed attempt to make sense of the unknown.
It doesn’t apply to Perry. He understands what he’s doing, he knows how wrong it is, yet he does it gladly and with enthusiasm. It’s not myth he traffics in, but lies, talking points, spin, and propaganda.
Do you people have to be led by the hand to the toilet, over and over again? When will you learn to rely on facts instead of ideology? Here is an important fact: “The reason given for the arrest order were charges brought by the Attorney General and the order was to enable a statement to be made to the Supreme Court. The decision to expatriate him was, however, taken by the military themselves, knowing full well that it violated the constitution.”, this according to Frances Robles of the Miami Herald.
Moreover, nations around the globe ridiculed the move, not just the leftist regimes in the region.
Finally, speaking about violating the Honduran Constitution, how about this? “Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, charged that the exiling of her husband was a violation of the Honduran Constitution. Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution forbids expatriating or handing over of Hondurans to foreign countries.”
You people need to do a little research before getting carried away by your ideology, in ignorance of the facts!
Article 102 refers to extradition, Perry, and former President Zelaya was not extradited into the custody of another nation.
Most real military coups don’t end with the deposed leader stuffed into a plane and sent abroad; most end with the deposed leader stuffed in a box and sent six feet under.
It seems that, in the end, the Honduran people liked what was done: they came out to vote in significantly greater numbers than the previous elections, and they gave teh Zelayista candidate less than 2% of the vote. Mr Zeyala’s original party’s candidate was soundly defeated, and the conservatives won. Finally, the Congress, the representatives in which were elected in the same election which seated Mr Zelaya in the first place, many of whom were members of his original party, voted 111-14 not to restore him.
Somehow, I’m not certain that citing the deposed president’s wife constitutes citing an unbiased observer.
He certainly was extradited, by the military, to Costa Rica. I don’t know what else you could call it!
Moreover, that this coup was not the norm is of no consequence, the fact is, it has been labeled a coup by a huge number of governments.
Before citing his wife, I also cited the Miami Herald. Did you read that?
I agree, the Hondurans have spoken, which is the way democratic processes are supposed to work, not by a trumped up coup.
A coup is when the military takes over, which was not the case in Honduras. End of story.
Perry wrote:
Extradite: To give up or deliver (a fugitive, for example) to the legal jurisdiction of another government or authority. Manuel Zelaya was not extradited, because he was not turned over to the legal authorities in Costa Rica. Banish is listed as a synonym, and he certainly was banished, but banished is not extradited.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.” Calling what happened to Mr Zelaya a coup doesn’t make it a coup, regardless of how many governments called it one.
Eric guesses:“A coup is when the military takes over, which was not the case in Honduras. End of story.”
Eric, you are the kind of a person who, as a student, used to drive me up the wall, bright, but too lazy to exert any energy. To make your point, you could at least have opened a dictionary!
Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for ‘coup’: a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act
Not one word about ‘military’, is there Eric?
Usually, people who have a very high opinion of themselves behave this way as they just assume they are correct, then are unwilling to exert any effort to back up their assumptions. In my class I would push at potentially talented students like you, and I would bet you’ve had teachers do exactly that. End of rant at Eric! And don’t feel singled out, Eric, as I would write exactly the same about ‘ropelight’!
So Eric, you were not correct, nor are you Dana, in my view, taking your dictionary definition as my argument.
Zelaya was extradited to Costa Rica, where, as a non-citizen, he would come in under the ‘legal jurisdiction’ of the Costa Rican authorities, correct?
Perry wrote:
Perhaps you should look in the mirror, Perry. Coup, in this usage, is actually shorthand for coup d’etat, which is defined as: The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority. That doesn’t specify military, but it ought to be noted here that virtually the entire Honduran government other than President Zelaya took part in it. The Supreme Court’s fifteen justices voted unanimously to issue the arrest warrant last summer, while the Congress, which was controlled by Mr Zelaya’s own party, voted 125-3 to remove him from office. This was not exactly a “small group of persons.”
Dana is right. The formal term is “Coup d’Etat”, for which “Coup” is simply shorthand. As used in the real world, the term almost always refers to a takeover of the government by the military. The dictionary definition is fine, but remember, the dictionary definition of “Gay” was once “Happy”, so the dictionary isn’t always up to speed with present usage.
Dana:“Perhaps you should look in the mirror, Perry.”
I looked in the dictionary, Dana, Eric did not. You did his homework for him. Oh well!
“… by a usually small group” it says. Don’t forget what the word ‘usually’ means.
Here is what the top legal advisor for the Honduras armed forces said after the coup, or coup d’etat if you wish: ” ”We know there was a crime there,” said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. “In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”
Zelaya was ousted in a predawn raid at his house Sunday after he vowed to defy a court order that ruled a nonbinding referendum to be held that day illegal. The leftist wealthy rancher had clashed with the attorney general, the Supreme Court, Congress and the military he commanded.
But instead of being taken to court to stand trial for abuse of power and treason, the military swept him out of bed at gunpoint and forced him into exile.”
I pointed this out in a reference cited earlier in this thread. Moreover, Zelaya was ousted on the basis of his conducting a legal non-binding referendum, which was trumped up to be illegal, but which was actually legal.
Dana, your contentions in this matter are simply not correct! Hillary Clinton had it right.
Perry wrote:
If I said that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is legal or illegal in the United States, you’d agree, without question. And the Supreme Court of Honduras is the final arbiter of what is legal or illegal in Honduras, under Honduran law and their constitution. The Supreme Court of Honduras decided, unanimously, 15-0, that former President Zelaya’s “non-binding referendum” was illegal, and required that he ne removed from office pursuant to Article 239.
You might not like their decision, but it was what it was. Why should we think that your opinion of what is legal or illegal under Honduran law is somehow better informed than the unanimous opinion of the Honduran Supreme Court?