The Department of State: beating its head against a wall, for no good reason

I could actually understand the Obama Administration trying to get involved in the Honduran situation — even if they were really on the wrong track — back in the summer. But it’s January 8th, the elections have come and gone, and a new, duly elected president will take office in just nineteen days. The Administration hasn’t been able to accomplish anything that they’ve set out to do yet in Honduras — other than look like fools — in the six months of the Micheletti “interregnum,” so why would they want to step into this minefield again? There is nothing that they would like to accomplish that they could accomplish before January 27, so why try anything, why say anything?

From the State Department Daily Briefing, 5 January 2010 (Hat tip to DRJ):

QUESTION: Well, I just want one on Honduras. I mean, isn’t it a little besides the point now? I mean, you’re going to kind of implement the San Jose process. You already have a president-elect. You have an inauguration coming up. You’ve already pretty much said that you’re going to accept and deal with the new government. So what is this kind of symbolic box-checking of making sure that you implement the San Jose Accords before the new government –

(Assistant Secretary Phillip) CROWLEY: Well, I don’t think it’s symbolic at all. I mean, obviously, what happened back in June represents a breach in the heart of Honduran society, and to some extent that tension is still there. So yes, you’re right; there is a new government that will be installed on January 27th. The real question is: Can that government be a vehicle through which you begin a healing process and you have a situation where the Honduran people can unite behind this new government? That is our primary effort here: How do we help Honduras move forward and to overcome the clear tension that resulted in the actions taken last June?

A breach in the heart of Honduran society? Honduras held its presidential election, on the previously-scheduled date, and, with significantly higher turnout than occurred in the 2005 electing won by Manuel Zelaya, Hondurans voted for “Pepe” Lobo, the candidate of the major center-right party, Partido Nacional, by a significant majority. Former President Zelaya’s former party, Partido Liberal, came in second, while the Zeyalista candidate received a whopping 1.7% of the votes.

The Honduran Supreme Court had voted unanimously to depose Mr Zelaya, and the Honduran Congress had voted to do the same, 125-3; Mr Zelaya’s party held the congressional majority at the time.

Of course, there were the so-called San Jose Accords, calling for the Congress to vote on the restoration of deposed President Zelaya:

National Congress of Honduras rejects the restitution of Sr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales

The legislative body reaffirms its support for the constitutional succession that brought Roberto Micheletti Bain to the Presidency

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, 02 December, 2009 – With a vote of 111 in favor and 14 against, the National Congress of Honduras today overwhelmingly rejected the restitution of Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the presidency of the Republic. Also, Congress passed a motion supporting the succession leading to the constitutional presidency of Mr. Roberto Micheletti Bain. Members in turn strongly and affirmatively expressed of the permanence of President Micheletti in office until January 2010, confirming Decree 141-2009, with 111 votes for and 14 against. The president-elect of the Republic, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo will take office on January 27, when the new President of Congress will place the presidential sash.

In making that decision, Congress fulfills the responsibility that fell on the legislative body under section five of the Agreement Tegucigalpa / San José, which was signed last October 30 by representatives of President Micheletti Bain and Mr. Zelaya Rosales. As stipulated in paragraph five, the Congress “To achieve reconciliation and to strengthen democracy, in the spirit of the theme of the proposed agreement of San José, both negotiating committees have decided to respectfully submit that the National Congress, as an institutional expression of popular sovereignty, exercising its powers, in consultation with the instances that it deems appropriate such as the Supreme Court of Justice and in accordance with the law, resolve as appropriate in respect “to roll back the ownership of Executive Power to its previous status as at 28 June, until the conclusion of the current governmental period on 27 January 2010″. Contrary to public statements from various sectors, the agreement makes no type of recommendation with regard to due result of this decision, it only required that the same was done.

“For the second time, this Congress has spoken strongly that Mr. Zelaya Rosales not be restored to the presidency. For the second time, the congressmen elected by the Honduran people have raised their voices in defense of our constitution and democratic system of government. There will not be a third time. We demand that the international community respect the final decision of this legislative body, where the popular sovereignty of our people resides,” said José Alfredo Saavedra, President of the National Congress and member of the Liberal Party.

Before making its decision, Congress sought views on the legality of the possible return of Mr. Zelaya Rosales from several entities of the government of Honduras. As dictated by the Tegucigalpa / San José Agreement, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Solicitor General’s Office, the Commissioner Human Rights, and the Attorney General, presented reports.

These opinions and consultations for the consideration of the Honduran congress were made available to members of Congress, even though these were not binding on its final decision.

The decision against the return of Mr. Zelaya Rosales to the presidency, was overwhelmingly supported by members from all political parties represented in Congress.

“This Congress has fulfilled its responsibility under the Agreement Tegucigalpa / San José in a transparent and democratic manner. We call on all of the international community and regional bodies, including the Organization of American States, to respect our sovereignty. Having elected a new president, all Hondurans have already begun the process of national unity and reconciliation. Those seeking to continue the controversy and to perpetuate the political crisis in our country are obsessed with the past and personal agendas and not the welfare of our country,” added Ramón Velásquez Nazar, Vice President of Congress and member of the Christian Democratic Party of Honduras.

The Honduras National Congress consists of 128 deputies who represent 5 political parties. Deputies are elected every four years by the Honduran people for a period of four years.

Translation from the Spanish original by La Gringa.

The clear majority of the people of Honduras approved deposing President Zelaya, as is evidenced by the votes they cast in a free and fair election, but our own State Department can’t seem to see that. Then, the Congress, which still had a majority of members from Mr Zelaya’s former party, voted 111 to 14, not to restore the deposed president. Just how much more evidence does our State Department need that there is no “breach in the heart of Honduran society,” at least, not among Hondurans? That there may be a breach in the heart of some State Department desk jockeys I readily concede. Back to Secretary Crowley’s briefing:

QUESTION: Well, but the tension was from Zelaya’s rule and the people that wanted him back in versus the people that –

QUESTION: Why?

QUESTION: Whatever.

MR. CROWLEY: That’s true. By the same token, our interest here is in seeing a true restoration of constitutional and democratic rule, and to see Honduras advance as a stable and contributing member of the international community.

If that is our interest, then we have already seen it met: a free and democratic election was held, and the Honduran constitution was upheld. If Honduras still lags “as a stable and contributing member of the international community,” it isn’t because of the actions of the people of Honduras, but of the reactions of other countries. That Hugo Chavez is upset is understandable, and will not change; that the United States government is standing in the way is unpardonable.

MR. CROWLEY: And, oh, by the way, we do have some decisions to make in the future about the future nature of our relationship. As we said back in November, the election was a step forward. We felt that the results did reflect the will of the Honduran people. That said, the election by itself was not enough to – we have some decisions to make in terms of the nature of our relationship, the nature of assistance in the future.

So there are still steps that Honduras has to take, and we are encouraged by comments by President-elect Lobo, but we are there to continue to move this process forward not only to get to January 27, but most importantly, to see that government advance once it’s in office.

You know, we deal with governments all the time that are not “reflections of the will” of their people, whose “elections” are as one-sided as they get, yet we don’t seem to have “some decisions to make in terms of the nature of our relationship.” Yet Honduras has a free and fair election, one which our own State Department has conceded reflects the will of the people of Honduras, but it’s just not quite good enough for President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

QUESTION: How – I mean, I understand about moving forward, but how by undoing what you did – not what you did, but what was done in Honduras at the absolute last minute right before the inauguration of this new president that you – by this new president repairs the constitutional breach that took place? And why would you need to reevaluate what kind of relationship you need with Honduras going forward? This was all about the interim government and the former deposed government. And why would you punish this new government for what happened before that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, remember, not only do we support a government of national unity that reflects all of the components –

QUESTION: For a day or a couple of days?

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, no – we support the formation of a national unity government that represents broad interests in Honduras. But most importantly, you need to have this truth commission that is part of a healing process that has to occur if Honduras is going to advance. So it is – there are a number of steps in the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accords. Some of them have been implemented, but not all, and this continues to demonstrate our commitment to the people of Honduras and to the future relationship between the United States and Honduras. But there are definitely – Craig is there to communicate clearly to a variety of parties that there are still things that Honduras has to do.

I’m sorry, but this is utter lunacy. Whatever problem the Obama Administration saw with Honduras has already been solved. What President Obama and his minions wanted to do, the restoration of Señor Zelaya, they could not get done in the five months between him being removed from power and the election, or in the 1½ months since the election; the chances that the Administration can get Honduras to knuckle under to our will in the nineteen days before President-elect Lobo receives the Presidential Sash are vanishingly small. At this point, there is no point in wasting time and money and effort on something which will not succeed, would not accomplish anything of value if it did succeed, and will only further anger the people of Honduras if we persist.

We still have another three years and twelve days of the Obama Administration and its naïve foreign policy. I sure hope that in that three years and twelve days, some of these noble idealists will grow up, will become adults. Right now, their pitiful performance on foreign policy in Latin America isn’t exactly encouraging.

66 Comments

  1. We still have another three years and twelve days of the Obama Administration and its naïve foreign policy. I sure hope that in that three years and twelve days, some of these noble idealists will grow up, will become adults.

    Methinks you have a better chance of Papa Noel, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Father Time, Mother Nature, Jack Spratt’s wife, and the contrary Mary sitting in your living-room and having a group discussion with you than your stated hope.

    But, whatever submerges your submarine, as they say.

  2. With a vote of 111 in favor and 14 against, the National Congress of Honduras today overwhelmingly rejected the restitution of Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the presidency of the Republic.

    You’d think a Democrat president would support, well, democracy, but I guess not. Either that, or they just think there’s some political mileage yet to be gained by kissing Senor Chavez’s big fat butt.

  3. The clear majority of the people of Honduras approved deposing President Zelaya, as is evidenced by the votes they cast in a free and fair election,

    Boy, you’d put on your kneepads and kneel down for any right-wing coup, wouldn’t you?

    Was Zelaya on the ballot? Have you addressed the curfews and extra-legal detentions of dissenters?

    Hey! I understand the USSR Communist Party was elected year after year with 99% of the votes cast! Doesn’t that make them democratic by your standards?

  4. The Communist in a time of Freedom wrote:

    Was Zelaya on the ballot? Have you addressed the curfews and extra-legal detentions of dissenters?

    Hey! I understand the USSR Communist Party was elected year after year with 99% of the votes cast! Doesn’t that make them democratic by your standards?

    Señor Zelaya was not on the ballot, but a hand-picked candidate of his was . . . and that candidate received less than 2% of the vote. The deposed president’s party had a candidate on the ballot, and while the party received a respectable share of the vote, it was still clearly a minority share. The center-right National Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo, received a significant majority — not just a plurality, but a majority — of the votes.

    Manuel Zelaya’s own party controlled the Honduran Congress, yet that Congress voted 125-3 to depose him, and, when there was a revote, called for by the San José Accord, that Congress voted 111-14 to confirm the original removal of Mr Zelaya.

    Of course, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union did get 99% of the votes — and the Communists were the only party on the ballot, and “voting” was pretty much mandatory. In Honduras, though turnout in 2009 increased significantly from the 2005 election, many chose not to vote, something that free people can do. In 2009, there were five parties on the ballot in Honduras, which would be four more than on a Soviet ballot, but you already knew that, too, didn’t you?

    To call your comparison apples and oranges would be unfair: at least both apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and rotten wood would be more apt. Hey, at least they both come from trees!

  5. Dana: No matter how you spin it, the fact is that a coup d’etat occurred in Honduras, where a properly elected leader was deposed six months before the election of a new President, and forcibly removed from the country! This suggests the existence of a conspiracy, therefore is bound to be a destabilizing event.

    The US has an interest in a stabilized and healed Honduras, in order to preempt the occurrence of violent interactions or further destabilization.

    I agree with you, the Honduran people have soundly rejected the Zelaya party, by means of a proper election, which is the democratic way, which did not happen with the coup and ejection of Zelaya from his own country. Why was he ejected from his country by the military? Perhaps you can answer that question!

    PS: I find the questioner of Assistant Secretary Crowley incoherent, and unimpressive.

  6. Perry wrote:

    This suggests the existence of a conspiracy, therefore is bound to be a destabilizing event.

    It does? When the Supreme Court decides unanimously, and the Congress, controlled by the President’s own party, votes 125-3, to remove the President, then if it was a conspiracy, it seems that almost everybody was a conspirator. And it’s difficult to call such near unanimity of opinion “a destabilizing event.” Perhaps you might consider the possibility that former President Zelaya’s attempt to find a path to a second term was what the Hondurans saw as destabilizing.

    The US has an interest in a stabilized and healed Honduras, in order to preempt the occurrence of violent interactions or further destabilization.

    What “violent interactions?” The country recently held a wholly peaceful, free and democratic election. That doesn’t seem to be the type of thing one could call “violent interactions” or destabilized.

    I agree with you, the Honduran people have soundly rejected the Zelaya party, by means of a proper election, which is the democratic way, which did not happen with the coup and ejection of Zelaya from his own country. Why was he ejected from his country by the military? Perhaps you can answer that question!

    The military was used, by the civilian leadership, because they had the physical ability to carry out the mission. The fact that the deposed president was exiled rather than killed — the normal result of a military coup — tells you right there that something was different.

    Our Phoenician friend called it a “right-wing coup,” but that is just demagoguery based on not understanding the facts. Roberto Micheletti, the interim President seated when Manuel Zelaya was deposed, comes from the same center-left party as Mr Zelaya, the Partido Liberal de Honduras. That party held 62 seats in the Honduran Congress, yet there were only three votes against deposing President Zelaya.

    So, what do you think that our current State Department position could accomplish at his date by insisting that Honduras somehow do more than it has?

    By the way, “Questioner” does not refer to a single individual. I compressed the transcript there, but there was clearly more than one reporter asking questions.

  7. Señor Zelaya was not on the ballot, but a hand-picked candidate of his was . . . and that candidate received less than 2% of the vote. The deposed president’s party had a candidate on the ballot, and while the party received a respectable share of the vote, it was still clearly a minority share. The center-right National Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo, received a significant majority — not just a plurality, but a majority — of the votes.
    Manuel Zelaya’s own party controlled the Honduran Congress, yet that Congress voted 125-3 to depose him, and, when there was a revote, called for by the San José Accord, that Congress voted 111-14 to confirm the original removal of Mr Zelaya.

    Dana, you’re making the mistake of using objective facts and logic on a Left Winger. This is dangerous. It could make their heads explode …

  8. Dana: No matter how you spin it, the fact is that a coup d’etat occurred in Honduras, where a properly elected leader was deposed six months before the election of a new President, and forcibly removed from the country! This suggests the existence of a conspiracy, therefore is bound to be a destabilizing event.

    Liberal trait # 5.

  9. I have made one factual error, in saying that “Manuel Zelaya’s own party controlled the Honduran Congress.” The Partido Liberal had a plurality of 62 members out of 128, but the center-right Partido Nacional controlled the Congress in coalition with a smaller party. Nevertheless, former President Zelaya was deposed with only three dissenting votes; his own former party rejected him decisively.

    And, to avoid confusion, I’d point out that the 2009 candidate of Mr Zelaya was not the Liberal Party candidate, Elvin Ernesto Santos, but César Ham, leader of the Partido Unificación Democrática, a socialist party.

  10. No matter how you spin it, the fact is that a coup d’etat occurred in Honduras,

    No, the fact of the matter is that Perry is completely and utterly CLUELESS about Honduran law, what it provides for, and hence, the actual definition of “coup d’etat.”

    Could he BE a bigger pro-Obama hack??

  11. Imagine if the US Congress impeached and then convicted GW Bush … and then he refused to vacate office. If the police and/or military entered the White House to extract him, to Perry that would be a “coup d’etat.”

    Oh, wait — no it wouldn’t since Bush is “evil” and “deserved” it. Thus, Perry’d verbally twist himself into a pretzel yet again attempting to make himself sound rational, but he’d fail miserable. Again. This is settled science, folks.

  12. I notice, Dana, that you did not answer my question why it was necessary to force Zelaya out of his own country! You also try hard to give the impression that everything is just great in Honduras. It is not!

    For one thing, the Public Prosecutor is bringing to trial the 5 generals accused of ‘abuse of authority’ for exiling Zelaya. The Honduran Supreme Court has just assigned a judge to hear the case.

    For another, the De Facto government (Micheletti) cannot meet payroll, and will depend on US aid to help them out. The US has committed to resuming aid.

    And another, the De Facto government is alleged by ‘Reporters Without Borders’ to have silenced an opposition radio station, by breaking into the building, destroying equipment, and burning the building down.

    Another, the European Union has condemned the killings of Karol Cabrera, daughter of a journalist, and Walter Trochez, an LGBT activist and resistance member.

    Also note, the US is not the only one critical of the current situation in Honduras: “EFE reported this morning that Spain has adopted a hard line concerning the formation of Poririo Lobo Sosa’s administration. Spokesmen for the Zapatero government said yesterday that if Micheletti is still in power, or if there are other leaders who supported the overthrow of Zelaya in power, the Spanish government will not recognize the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.”

    And take note of this: “All of the world– including those few governments that have declared the November elections legitimate– recognize José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the legal, constitutional president of Honduras. The Honduran Congress, whose president will place the sash of office on him, twice voted otherwise, asserting that Roberto Micheletti is now the constitutional president. Lobo himself may wish this would go away as a problem– but it is hard to see how.”

    So Dana, sorry to differ, but your picture of the “stability” in Honduras is not at all correct. The US is attempting to contribute to stability, far from your characterization of being “naive”! Moreover, the US has committed to supporting the duly elected Lobo government once it takes power.

  13. Imagine if the US Congress impeached and then convicted GW Bush … and then he refused to vacate office. If the police and/or military entered the White House to extract him, to Perry that would be a “coup d’etat.”

    Imagine if a Democrat majority Congress and a Democrat dominated Supreme Court deposed a Republican President and sent him to Mexico, and then arrested and imprisioned the Republican House minority and all the Republican Senators, imposed martial law on the country and arrested all the Fox News commentators, and then “impeached” the deposed President.

  14. Also note, the US is not the only one critical of the current situation in Honduras: “EFE reported this morning that Spain has adopted a hard line concerning the formation of Poririo Lobo Sosa’s administration. Spokesmen for the Zapatero government said yesterday that if Micheletti is still in power, or if there are other leaders who supported the overthrow of Zelaya in power, the Spanish government will not recognize the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.”

    With all due respect, Perry, who gives a shit what Spain thinks? It’s been a couple centuries at least since they amounted to anything as a world power.

    [Formatting error corrected; no changes made in content. -- DRP]

  15. I notice, Dana, that you did not answer my question why it was necessary to force Zelaya out of his own country! You also try hard to give the impression that everything is just great in Honduras. It is not!

    I don’t think Dana is saying that everything is “Great” in Honduras, only that they are functioning as a democracy, and that the Obama Admin is still obsessing over the “Coup” instead of dealing with today’s realities in that country.

  16. Was Zelaya on the ballot?

    No, and for the same reason George W Bush wasn’t in 2008. It’s a little thing called term limits. Look into it sometime.

  17. Perry wrote:

    I notice, Dana, that you did not answer my question why it was necessary to force Zelaya out of his own country! You also try hard to give the impression that everything is just great in Honduras. It is not!

    They were being nice: the alternative would have been to keep him under arrest in Honduras, or put a bullet in his head.

    You cited the biased website, Honduras Coup 2009, as a source, and then said,

    For one thing, the Public Prosecutor is bringing to trial the 5 generals accused of ‘abuse of authority’ for exiling Zelaya. The Honduran Supreme Court has just assigned a judge to hear the case.

    If you had checked, the site you used noted that:

    The Supreme Court, after meeting as a whole today, assigned the Chief Justice, Jorge Alberto Rivera, to hear the case presented by the Public Prosecutor against the 5 generals of the military high command and to decide whether the case has merit and can proceed, according to El Heraldo’s Minute by Minute column.

    The Supreme Court just assigned its own President Judge, Jorge Alberto Rivera Avilés, to decide whether the generals who exiled the deposed President, on the orders of the Supreme Court, did so properly. :) I hope that you are not so naïve as to think that those five generals are in the least bit of trouble.

    For another, the De Facto government (Micheletti) cannot meet payroll, and will depend on US aid to help them out. The US has committed to resuming aid.

    I wonder if that is because the United States cut off money to Honduras when they deposed Señor Zelaya?

    Also note, the US is not the only one critical of the current situation in Honduras: “EFE reported this morning that Spain has adopted a hard line concerning the formation of Poririo Lobo Sosa’s administration. Spokesmen for the Zapatero government said yesterday that if Micheletti is still in power, or if there are other leaders who supported the overthrow of Zelaya in power, the Spanish government will not recognize the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.”

    And take note of this: “All of the world– including those few governments that have declared the November elections legitimate– recognize José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the legal, constitutional president of Honduras. The Honduran Congress, whose president will place the sash of office on him, twice voted otherwise, asserting that Roberto Micheletti is now the constitutional president. Lobo himself may wish this would go away as a problem– but it is hard to see how.”

    So Dana, sorry to differ, but your picture of the “stability” in Honduras is not at all correct. The US is attempting to contribute to stability, far from your characterization of being “naive”! Moreover, the US has committed to supporting the duly elected Lobo government once it takes power.

    What wonderful logic! Honduras has problems in large part because of the actions of other nations, nations which don’t recognize the current government, so it must all be Honduras’ fault!

    What Honduras really needs is for the United States to simply shut its mouth and resume normal relations. The Hondurans, in a very popular move, got rid of a president who, though duly elected, had moved so far to the left that he alienated his own center-left political party, and who attempted what the Hondurans saw as trying to have a second term, something expressly forbidden by the Constitution. They did what they believed they had to do.

  18. Eric: Dana is definitely trying to create the image of stability in Honduras, which is not the case per the items I just got finished outlining in my post. I also noted that “all of the world” recognize Zelaya as being the current legitimate government of Honduras, meaning that they do not recognize the coup as being legitimate. Moreover, the behavior of the generals involved in the coup is being prosecuted in Honduras.

    My point is: This is not the impression that Dana is trying to present, er, spin.

  19. The Blind in a time of Sighted People wrote:

    Imagine if a Democrat majority Congress and a Democrat dominated Supreme Court deposed a Republican President and sent him to Mexico, and then arrested and imprisioned the Republican House minority and all the Republican Senators, imposed martial law on the country and arrested all the Fox News commentators, and then “impeached” the deposed President.

    You’d have been closer if you had said that the entire Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, deposed the Republican president, because that’s the equivalent of what happened in Honduras.

    Unfortunately, the Honduran constitution, detailed as it is, has no impeachment clause; the Supreme Court and Congress didn’t have a more “regular” method of getting rid of President Zelaya when he violated Article 239; Article 239 states that any official who attempts to overturn the single-term limit immediately loses his office and is attainted from holding public office for the subsequent ten years. The Honduran government basically did the best they could in the situation.

    Let’s be clear here: for the government of Honduras to have allowed President Zelaya to complete his term would have violated Honduras’ own constitution! It can reasonably be argued that the constitution has a shortcoming in not specifying how a President who violates 239 is to be removed, but the fact is that he did have to go — and Hondurans approved of his ouster.

  20. For example, Dana just said:“They were being nice [about just exiling Zelaya]: the alternative would have been to keep him under arrest in Honduras, or put a bullet in his head.”

    What kind of a mentality is this, Dana?

    I refer to Phoenician’s scenario for a rebuttal: “Imagine if a Democrat majority Congress and a Democrat dominated Supreme Court deposed a Republican President and sent him to Mexico, and then arrested and imprisoned the Republican House minority and all the Republican Senators, imposed martial law on the country and arrested all the Fox News commentators, and then “impeached” the deposed President.”

    This is a rough analogy to what happened in Honduras, and the reason why the interim Micheletti government has not been widely recognized. Dana, you are in the minority on this issue, and rather fierce in your acceptance of a coup d’etat solution. I’m surprised you have not called for the same re Obama. I’m sure that Eric and Hube would rally with you on that! :)

  21. Perry wrote:

    For example, Dana just said:“They were being nice [about just exiling Zelaya]: the alternative would have been to keep him under arrest in Honduras, or put a bullet in his head.”

    What kind of a mentality is this, Dana?

    What choices do you think they had when they deposed Manuel Zelaya? They actually gave him the least severe sanction, freedom in exile; do you think either jail or summary execution would have been better?

    There is a rough analogy to what happened in Honduras, and the reason why the interim Micheletti government has not been widely recognized. Dana, you are in the minority on this issue, and rather fierce in yur acceptance of a coup d’etat solution. I’m surprised you have not called for the same re Obama. I’m sure that Eric would rally with you on that!

    Nahhh, because removing Barack Obama would just make Joe Biden the president, and that wouldn’t be any better.

    If I am in the minority when it comes to the view of our State Department — run by a liberal — or the governments of the European Union — further left than the United States — or Hugo Chavez, sure, fine, I’ll accept that. Such would also put the people of Honduras in the minority on deciding who ought to run their own government; should their choices be subject to the will of the US or the UN or the EU?

    And if I’m in the minority, it doesn’t matter, because I am still right.

  22. Eric: Dana is definitely trying to create the image of stability in Honduras, which is not the case per the items I just got finished outlining in my post.

    As Latin American countries go, Honduras IS pretty stable, and their system of democracy seems to be functioning just fine. The only “Instability” is the whining coming from that crybaby Zelaya and his butt buddy Chavez. The rest of the country has moved on, and it’s time for the Obamanauts to do the same.

  23. I actually think Biden would be a better POTUS than Obama. Biden’s a buffoon who cannot blind many people at all and doesn’t have the backing of the Chicago machine or George Soros, so he cannot do nearly the damage Obama has done and will continue to do. There are many other “for the good of the country” reasons Biden would be better than Obama.

    Moving from there to Honduras, if MSM actually let the population know exactly what the Honduran Constitution stated, the “non-political” people of the US would stand behind the ouster of the anti-Constitutional Zelaya in huge numbers. But that is the point, isn’t it? Liberals in our own country have a disdain for our Constitution; why would they value some other country’s Constitution above their own desires?

    Someone accused me of trying to raise up the Constitution to the level of a fourth branch of government or something of the like, with the ability to write and change laws at will. And I believe that accusation was on this site, but I cannot be certain. I say no. The Constitution is above the three branches of government. It cannot write or change any laws at will, but it does determine whether those laws are permissible. And the Constitution is unchangeable in its words, but it gives two (count them) ways to change itself.

    This, I believe, is the major difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals don’t value the Constitution’s weight while Conservatives value the Constitution’s weight above all else in regards to national government. And this difference extends to Constitutions of other sovereign nations.

    This also ties in with the differing perspectives of another set of rules. Non-Christians, and most definitely Liberal non-Christians view them as the Ten Suggestions while Christians and, to a lesser extent, non-Christian Conservatives, view them as the Ten Commandments.

  24. I also noted that “all of the world” recognize Zelaya as being the current legitimate government of Honduras, meaning that they do not recognize the coup as being legitimate.

    That’s great, Perry. It is also irrelevant. If “All the world” insisted on recognizing the Shah as the leader of Iran post 1979, well, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit to the Ayatollah since he was the one actually running the country. 

    Dana has it right. “World opinion” isn’t the relevant issue here, but rather what the people of Honduras want. It’s THEIR country, after all, and deciding how to run it is their job, not a bunch of busybodies and pests from the “World community”. 

  25. You’d have been closer if you had said that the entire Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, deposed the Republican president, because that’s the equivalent of what happened in Honduras.

    Uh-huh.

    From Wikipedia:

    Acting President Roberto Micheletti ordered a curfew which initially lasted for the 48 hours from Sunday night (28 June) and to Tuesday (30 June).[119] The curfew law was not published in the official journal La Gaceta and was not approved by Congress.[119] Originally the curfew ran from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.[120] That curfew was extended, changed, or renewed several times,[121] in ways Amnesty International and the International Observation Mission called “arbitrary”.[119] On 1 July, Congress issued an order (decreto ejecutivo N° 011-2009) which extended restrictions between 22:00 and 05:00 local time and also at suspended four constitutional guarantees, including freedom of transit, due process, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.[122]

    The ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua stated that on 29 June that they were detained and beaten by Honduran troops before being released.[103] Also, several allies of Zelaya were taken into custody by the military. Among them were: Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas; the mayor of the city San Pedro Sula, Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri; several congressmen of the Democratic Unification Party (PUD); and several other government officials.[49][103][123] A dozen former ministers from the Zelaya government, as well as PUD presidential candidate Cesar Ham, went into in hiding.[124] A Venezuelan state-owned media outlet claimed that Tomás Andino Mencías, a member of the party, said that PUD lawmakers were led away by the military when they tried to enter the parliament building for the 28 June vote on Zelaya’s deposal.[125]

  26. One, Pooter’s favorite word is: idiot
    Two, Pooter’s favorite non-word is uh-huh
    Three, Pooter frequently quotes the documentedly untrustworthy Wiki as an authoritative source
    Four, Pooter already stated that he is a troll
    5ive, Pooter repeats his lies in the hopes that they will stick

  27. Gee, Pooter, you have been a documented failure in your attempts to prove me a liar. You have also been a documented goal-shifter in your total rejection of context and any other obvious matters in your attempt to paint people your preferred color. You do like to pretend people said one thing in order to prove they are wrong or liars when those people did not at all say what you like to pretend they said.

    Gee, Pooter, your history shows you have no morals when you want to win, even moving pieces on the board that you have no authority to move in order for you to win. That is very much documented on this site alone. The fact you have the willfully blind and deaf Perry in your hip pocket sucking the methane fumes you produce means nothing to those of us with more than three brain cells.

  28. Haven’t read the post but wanted to point out that it should say “its” in the title. “It’s” only ever means “it is.” Sorry for pedantry, just thinking you might want to know.

  29. The ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua stated that on 29 June that they were detained and beaten by Honduran troops before being released.[103] …. [snip] ….. A Venezuelan state-owned media outlet claimed that Tomás Andino Mencías, a member of the party, said that PUD lawmakers were led away by the military when they tried to enter the parliament building for the 28 June vote on Zelaya’s deposal.[125]

    Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Reliable sources, all [snort!]

  30. Four, Pooter already stated that he is a troll

    Apparently, he’s been banned from a number of other sites, so he comes here because no one else on the blogosphere wants to play with him. He’s like the stinky kid who never bathes, then wonders why respectable people shun him.

  31. I challenged John: Feel free to cite sources showing that PUD lawmakers were not arrested. Of course, we both know you won’t, don’t we…

    Naturally enough, he didn’t, resorting to ad hominem instead…

    Well, what else can we expect from a proven liar?

  32. No, and for the same reason George W Bush wasn’t in 2008. It’s a little thing called term limits. Look into it sometime.

    Very good, Eric. So when Dana states “The clear majority of the people of Honduras approved deposing President Zelaya, as is evidenced by the votes they cast in a free and fair election,”, he’s actually wrong, isn’t he – Zelaya wasn’t on the ballot and the election wasn’t a referendum on the coup now, was it?

    I know it’s difficult, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class…

  33. Eric:“Apparently, he’s [Phoenician's] been banned from a number of other sites, ….”

    True or not I don’t know, neither do you, Eric. But let’s assume it is true. Based on my observations on here, Phoenician deals with the facts, and presents them with citations. Therefore, if he has been banned, it is by weak-kneed, right wing partisans like yourself who have great difficulty handling the facts. You are all opinion, few facts, an approach which wins few if any debates, except from the choir on this blog, who also, like you, have little regard for the facts, with some previously noted exceptions.

    Here’s your latest example, Eric: “Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Reliable sources, all [snort!]“

    I guess you had no counter to the facts which Phoenician posted. I understand, if you don’t like the facts presented, you just brush them off, instead of dealing with them in an intellectual fashion.

  34. Dana:“And if I’m in the minority, it doesn’t matter, because I am still right.”

    OK, Dana, you’ve just ended the discussion/debate. Facts that are counter to your POV on this issue just don’t count, is that it?

  35. cmbc pointed out:

    Haven’t read the post but wanted to point out that it should say “its” in the title. “It’s” only ever means “it is.” Sorry for pedantry, just thinking you might want to know.

    Actually, I do know, and it was an error on my part; it has been fixed.

  36. The Phoenician doesn’t keep up:

    No, and for the same reason George W Bush wasn’t in 2008. It’s a little thing called term limits. Look into it sometime. (Eric)

    Very good, Eric. So when Dana states “The clear majority of the people of Honduras approved deposing President Zelaya, as is evidenced by the votes they cast in a free and fair election,”, he’s actually wrong, isn’t he – Zelaya wasn’t on the ballot and the election wasn’t a referendum on the coup now, was it?

    I know it’s difficult, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class…

    Except that there was a party, the Partido Unificación Democrática, whose candidate, César Ham, supported Manuel Zelaya and said his ouster was wrong. Since both Mr Zelaya’s former party, the Liberals, and the opposition, the National Party, supported getting rid of Mr Zelaya, one would have expected that, if the people were vigorously opposed to deposing him, both the National and Liberal Parties would have suffered, and the Democratic Unification Party would have seen a significant surge. In 1997, the PUD’s presidential candidate received 1.2%, in 2001 1.1%, in 2005 they moved up to 1.5% and in the last election, a whopping 1.7%. The voters of Honduras didn’t seem to reward the PUD for its support of President Zelaya with a significant increase in votes.

  37. Perry wrote:

    Eric:“Apparently, he’s [Phoenician's] been banned from a number of other sites, ….”

    True or not I don’t know, neither do you, Eric. But let’s assume it is true.

    I don’t know if he’s been banned anywhere, but our former frequent commenter Jesurgislac, even though she’s even further to the left than Phoe, certainly didn’t like him.

    I see Phoe’s work occasionally on Pandagon, but it seems as though his most frequent forays are right here.

  38. The Phoenician quoted Wikipedia:

    The ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua stated that on 29 June that they were detained and beaten by Honduran troops before being released.

    To which Eric responded:

    Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Reliable sources, all [snort!]

    And then Perry added:

    I guess you had no counter to the facts which Phoenician posted. I understand, if you don’t like the facts presented, you just brush them off, instead of dealing with them in an intellectual fashion.

    The intellectual fashion of dealing with the claim is to note just which countries those ambassadors represented. Cuba is an outright communist dictatorship, Venezuela is run by a socialist semi-dictator, while Nicaragua is, once again, being ruled by Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas. Nothing they say can or should be trusted.

    If the ambassador from Nicaragua told me that 2 + 2 = 4, I’d have to check his math.

  39. Dana:“Nothing they say can or should be trusted. “

    So because their [Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua] politics are not to your liking, they should not be trusted? That’s reasonable, but not specific only to Communistic or Socialistic governments.

    We and the UK have behaved in such a manner to promote distrusting our public statements, based on the history of the last administrations in both countries, and based on the behavior of our Wall Street that almost brought the globe into a depression.

    A little introspection, based on factual information, goes a long way; that is what I mean by dealing with policies in an “intellectual fashion”.

    PS: I note that I (and Phoenician) presented to you some factual information that belies your conclusions about what went on with the coup and its aftermath in Honduras. Therefore, I am suggesting that your expressed views are based mainly on your ideology, as you choose to ignore facts that do not fit your preconceptions.

  40. Perry wrote:

    Dana:“Nothing they say can or should be trusted. “

    So because their [Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua] politics are not to your liking, they should not be trusted? That’s reasonable, but not specific only to Communistic or Socialistic governments.

    Perhaps not specific to Communist of socialist governments, but invariably true of Communist or socialist governments. I will believe that the ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were detained and beaten by Honduran troops when I see the videotape.

    Where were these ambassadors when such a thing happened? Were they out walking on the public streets? If so, how did the Honduran government know where they were, how did the Honduran troops know where to find them, and what kind of idiot would have given orders to mistreat the ambassadors from those three countries?

    Or were they in their embassies? If so, there should be plenty of video of the Honduran troops storming the three embassies, and seizing the ambassadors; such would have been acts of war. Did Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua declare war on Honduras after these assaults?

    One of the subtle differences between Communist lies and those of capitalist governments is that the capitalist, democratic nations at least try to make them plausible; the Communist states don’t even bother, but go with the big lie theory.

  41. The facts, Perry, are: Zelaya is out, the people voted. It’s settled science. Live with it.

    The other fact is that if you consider the source of Cuba, Venezuala and Nicaragus to be of the same moral character as the U.S and the U.K. we have a problem. Our administrations are not always correct nor are they always honest, but they are not tyrants nor are they thugs. Yet!

  42. Very good, Eric. So when Dana states “The clear majority of the people of Honduras approved deposing President Zelaya, as is evidenced by the votes they cast in a free and fair election,”, he’s actually wrong, isn’t he – Zelaya wasn’t on the ballot and the election wasn’t a referendum on the coup now, was it?

    Your statement doesn’t make any sense, and completely misses my point in any event.

  43. Naturally enough, he didn’t, resorting to ad hominem instead…
    Well, what else can we expect from a proven liar?

    Words fail me.

  44. Eric:“Apparently, he’s [Phoenician's] been banned from a number of other sites, ….”
    True or not I don’t know, neither do you, Eric. But let’s assume it is true. Based on my observations on here, Phoenician deals with the facts, and presents them with citations. Therefore, if he has been banned, it is by weak-kneed, right wing partisans like yourself who have great difficulty handling the facts.

    Uh, no, Perry. I don’t know exactly why he was banned, because I don’t visit the sites in question, but I can come up with a pretty good guess. All you have to look at his posts here, where he is persistently rude and nasty (interestingly, you never call him on it). He has, at one time or another, insulted just about everyone here, including Dana, who I think puts up with him out of Christian charity, since if it were MY blog, and he routinely insulted me and others, he’d be GONE. It’s like a home; the host isn’t obligated to put up with boorish behavior from one of the guests.

  45. Here’s your latest example, Eric: “Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Reliable sources, all [snort!]“
    I guess you had no counter to the facts which Phoenician posted. I understand, if you don’t like the facts presented, you just brush them off, instead of dealing with them in an intellectual fashion.

    My “Counter” was to make the obvious point that these sources were unreliable by their very nature. Cuba is a certified Communist dictatorship, Nicaragua is run by a former Communist, and Venezuela by a guy who’s trying real hard to become a Communist. All three have a strong ideological dog in this fight, and Communists are noted for distorting the truth when it comes to promoting their ideology. One doesn’t deal with liars in an “Intellectual” fashion, one simply points out their long history of telling lies, and let folks reach their own conclusions.

  46. My “Counter” was to make the obvious point that these sources were unreliable by their very nature

    Uh-huh. And, presumably, you also dismiss the reports by opposition journalists and international human rights organisations about the crackdown because they’re also “leftist”.

    You have a nice little hermeneutical structure set up to justify your ignorance and avoid facing reality, Eric. Right up to the point where it hits you in the face.

  47. The Phoenician wrote:

    Uh-huh. And, presumably, you also dismiss the reports by opposition journalists and international human rights organisations about the crackdown because they’re also “leftist”.

    What is an “opposition journalist?” I know what an objective journalist is, someone who is supposed to report the news as news, without bias. Wouldn’t an “opposition journalist,” by definition, be someone with a political axe to grind?

  48. What is an “opposition journalist?”

    One who reports things the junta dislikes. I realise that you think it’s reasonable to beat and arrest people for disagreeing with dictators – as long as they’re right wing, of course.

  49. Our Phoenician friend wrote:

    What is an “opposition journalist?”

    One who reports things the junta dislikes.

    I note that you didn’t include anything in that definition about reporting things truthfully, or accurately or objectively.

    I realise that you think it’s reasonable to beat and arrest people for disagreeing with dictators – as long as they’re right wing, of course.

    Perhaps you’ve missed it, but, given that we are speaking about Honduras, the government is not exactly right-wing. The President, Roberto Micheletti, is a long-time member of the center-left Liberal Party, the President of the Congress is José Alfredo Saavedra, a member of the Liberal Party, and 62 out of 128 members of the Congress are members of the Liberal Party. Now, they’re not far-left socialists, as former President Zelaya changed into, nor like Hugo Chavez, but to call them “right-wing” is wholly inaccurate.

    And your use of the term “junta” is inaccurate as well, at least if you are referring to Honduras. A junta is defined as:

    1. A group of military officers ruling a country after seizing power.
    2. A council or small legislative body in a government, especially in Central or South America.
    3. A junto.

    The military isn’t ruling Honduras, nor is a small council doing so: the entire 128 member Congress is still in power.

  50. …their pitiful performance on foreign policy in Latin America …

    Just in Latin America? The RESET button? The cruddy gifts for Gordon Brown? Snubbing Angela Merkel?

    Although I must admit, Fidel, Hugo and Daniel are loving our Latin American foreign policy about now.

  51. Perhaps you’ve missed it, but, given that we are speaking about Honduras, the government is not exactly right-wing. The President, Roberto Micheletti, is a long-time member of the center-left Liberal Party, the President of the Congress is José Alfredo Saavedra, a member of the Liberal Party, and 62 out of 128 members of the Congress are members of the Liberal Party. Now, they’re not far-left socialists, as former President Zelaya changed into, nor like Hugo Chavez, but to call them “right-wing” is wholly inaccurate.

    Don’t confuse a left winger with facts, Dana. As the saying goes, you can lead a lefty to logic, but you can’t make him think.

  52. Former CIA will tell you of the tactics to bring down democratically elected leaders. It’s not about democracy, it is and always has been about taking down any government leader that doesn’t play by the Globalist/multi-national powerhouse corporate interest that actually owns our government and its agenda is to do whatever the hell it wants around the world, and no one else gets to make the rules. Death will take you, compliments of the military/corporate/CIA operations otherwise. Look what happened in Chile. (Oh, you have to be curious and google these questions, got any? I didn’t think so!)It’s historic, and common. I can tell you all this, and you will deny it. Sources are available from former CIA, but you prefer the deaf, dumb and blind existence, while beer in the belly, and “Dancing with the Stars” is in your little heads, and commonsenseless obliging of the fat cats suits you just fine. Do some of your own research. I doubt you will. It might require objectivity and independent thought, which makes all you Rightie tighties unqualified. You entire perspective is already written for you.

    Ha, I had to laugh. My friend, an otherwise intelligent person, except that he’s Conservative, said to me, thinking he was being funny: “How’s that ‘hope and change’ workin out for you?” Obviously we are pissed that Obama is merely resuming Bush’s criminality. Well, what is funny is that the exact same phrase (from J.Hitchcock for one)has been used recently. I just wonder which of your shill “journalist” (cough) buddies spilled that rhetoric. Have you Rightie tighties any capacity for independent discernment?

    An example of your oblivion, and the suction into the black hole of oblivion you willfully jump into:

    This was Greg Palast while in Venezuela, for example, from The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

    “I’d just come back, from Venezuela, I saw a good 2000,000 march against President Hugo Chavez. But what the American papers did not report was that nearly half a million Venezuelans marched for Chavez.”

    You probably don’t even know that CIA operate within countries to make governments “user friendly” to American multi-national corporations. “Play by our rules or die.” The anti-Chauvez sentiment was stirred up by the CIA in covert actions. Plenty of former CIA will tell you that.

    You all Rightie tighties are too chicken shit to look and see that I’m right. Repugnant oblivion, willful bewilderment. Wake up. Big military might are bullies, used by corporations!!! No, you don’t hear about such thing on the MSM. Corporate mafiosos, those same fat cat MSM owners are all part of the same agenda. Bullies. Our military does not work for us. It works for political entities who gives them money. Guess who has the most money to give? Oil, defense industries, for one. Wake up to the nightmares you all support. Good dreams like democracy, are just fluff fed to you. You eat it like cotton candy. Your brains are totting from it. Corporate domination around the world, with the US military, and CIA at the behest of their every whim.

    You are dumb asses not to realize these things. More likely you will all go back to your happy little delusions. Oh yeah, wave your flag, while blood spurts from the bodies of babies hit by our bombs, old grandmothers and mothers, get bombed. You don’t give a rat’s ass. You don’t look or think for yourselves. Too much work. Lazy, ass kissing corporate cheerleaders! You people are a detriment to humanity worldwide, as the mightiest military power in the history of this planet go around bombing anyone that interferes with their global dominance plan.. You might as well be having a cup of blood for your mindless head-bobbing. You are part of the vampire operation of slaughtering innocent human being in oil rich countries. You fu#&ing brain dead bags of blather!!! Wipe the blood from your GD hands supportingfear based probaganda that defense industry pumps for $$$.

  53. Uh-huh. And, presumably, you also dismiss the reports by opposition journalists and international human rights organisations about the crackdown because they’re also “leftist”.

    As usual, you completely miss the point. The “sources” listed all have serious credibility problems, but if you want to blindly believe the Cubans or the Venezuelans, then I guess you’ll believe just about anything. Besides, your “source” was wikipedia, which isn’t even a news organization at all, let alone an objective one. If you want to be taken seriously, it would help if you presented reliable information, instead of parroting some propaganda that only serves your ideological agenda.

  54. “Facts” from Eric???????? He not only has no monopoly on facts, he cannot prove anything he proclaims. Witnesses that disgaree with him, well name calling will be his response. Like getting orange juice from a rock, expecting factual evidence from the Rightie tighties like Eric.. Lotsa’ luck.

  55. One who reports things the junta dislikes. I realise that you think it’s reasonable to beat and arrest people for disagreeing with dictators – as long as they’re right wing, of course.

    This is why no one here takes you seriously. One, you get your facts completely wrong. There was no “Junta” or dictatorship, only a civilian government that replaced a guy who was lawfully rejected by the country’s Supreme Court. Second, you resort to the usual personal attacks, this time on Dana’s motives and character. But, I guess when you’re only interested in pushing a far left agenda, then facts, reason, and common decency go right out the window.

  56. Blu spouts off

    Witnesses that disgaree with him, well name calling will be his response. Like getting orange juice from a rock, expecting factual evidence from the Rightie tighties like Eric..

    and irony meters world-wide explode.

  57. There was no “Junta” or dictatorship, only a civilian government that replaced a guy who was lawfully rejected by the country’s Supreme Court.

    Uh-huh.

    Soldiers stormed the president’s residence in Tegucigalpa early in the morning of 28 June, disarming the presidential guard, waking Zelaya and putting him on a plane to Costa Rica . [101] In San José, Costa Rica, Zelaya told TeleSUR that he had been awakened by gunshots. Masked soldiers took his cell phone, shoved him into a van and took him to an air force base, where he was put on a plane. He said he did not know that he was being taken to Costa Rica until he landed at the airport in San José.[49] To the media described the events as “a coup” and “a kidnapping.” [102]

    Tanks patrolled the streets and military planes flew overhead. Soldiers guarded the main government buildings. The government television station and a television station that supports the president were taken off the air. Television and radio stations broadcast no news.[49] The electrical power, phone lines, and international cable TV were cut or blocked throughout Honduras.[103] Public transportation was suspended.[104]

    Later that day, the Supreme Court issued a statement that it had ordered the army to arrest Zelaya.[13][105] On 30 June, the military’s chief lawyer, Colonel Herberth Inestroza, showed Judge Arita’s arrest order.[101] Colonel Inestroza later stated that deporting Zelaya did not comply with the court order, but that military leadership had decided to do so in order to avoid violence in Honduras, asking “What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?”.[106] Inestroza also stated that Zelaya’s allegiance to Chávez was hard to stomach and “It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That’s impossible. I personally would have retired, because my thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.”[106]
    [...]
    Acting President Roberto Micheletti ordered a curfew which initially lasted for the 48 hours from Sunday night (28 June) and to Tuesday (30 June).[119] The curfew law was not published in the official journal La Gaceta and was not approved by Congress.[119] Originally the curfew ran from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.[120] That curfew was extended, changed, or renewed several times,[121] in ways Amnesty International and the International Observation Mission called “arbitrary”.[119] On 1 July, Congress issued an order (decreto ejecutivo N° 011-2009) which extended restrictions between 22:00 and 05:00 local time and also at suspended four constitutional guarantees, including freedom of transit, due process, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.[122]

    The ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua stated that on 29 June that they were detained and beaten by Honduran troops before being released.[103] Also, several allies of Zelaya were taken into custody by the military. Among them were: Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas; the mayor of the city San Pedro Sula, Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri; several congressmen of the Democratic Unification Party (PUD); and several other government officials.[49][103][123] A dozen former ministers from the Zelaya government, as well as PUD presidential candidate Cesar Ham, went into in hiding.[124] A Venezuelan state-owned media outlet claimed that Tomás Andino Mencías, a member of the party, said that PUD lawmakers were led away by the military when they tried to enter the parliament building for the 28 June vote on Zelaya’s deposal.[125]

    Several TV stations, radio stations, and newspaper’s websites were temporarily shut down.[126]. The Miami Herald reported that the “crackdown on the media” began before dawn on the 28th. It said that only pro-Micheletti stations were allowed to broadcast and that they carried only news friendly to the new government.[127] Associated Press personnel were detained and removed from their hotel, but later released.[128] A number of local reporters and media sources reported on harassment and restrictions.[128][129] Alejandro Villatoro, director of Radio Globo, said that he was arrested and “kidnapped” for some hours by the military.[130]

    Honduran newspaper La Prensa reported on 30 June that an armed group of Zelaya supporters, attacked its main headquarters by throwing stones and other objects at their windows, until police intervened.[131]

  58. Phoe, you apparently can’t understand the difference between a military junta, a group of military officers which rules the country, and the military being used as the instrument of deportation by the civilian leadership.

  59. Blu, what’s your point? Given that the Obama Administration opposed removing President Zelaya, and was apparently surprised by it, why would you be blaming the CIA? This was done in opposition to what our government wanted, not in support of US policy.

  60. The Phoenician quotes an unlinked source (though it’s probably Wikipedia):

    The ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua stated that on 29 June that they were detained and beaten by Honduran troops before being released.[103]

    Noted before: This is completely untrustworthy, given the countries they represent, without independent corroboration. Where is the video of their embassies being invaded and the ambassadors hustled out?

    Also, several allies of Zelaya were taken into custody by the military. Among them were: Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas; the mayor of the city San Pedro Sula, Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri; several congressmen of the Democratic Unification Party (PUD); and several other government officials.[49][103][123] A dozen former ministers from the Zelaya government, as well as PUD presidential candidate Cesar Ham, went into in hiding.[124] A Venezuelan state-owned media outlet claimed that Tomás Andino Mencías, a member of the party, said that PUD lawmakers were led away by the military when they tried to enter the parliament building for the 28 June vote on Zelaya’s deposal.[125]

    Yet, amazingly enough, all 128 members of the Congress voted on whether to depose President Zelaya. If the PUD congressmen were “led away by the military when they tried to enter the parliament building for the 28 June vote on Zelaya’s deposal,” how is it that they managed to vote on it?

    You, of course, will claim that we have only the government’s word that all 128 congressmen voted, but I would note that the report you cited said that it was a “Venezuelan state-owned media outlet (which) claimed” this. That’s about like citing Pravda as your source!

    César Ham went into hiding? Where are the independent reports of this, considering that Señor Ham was apparently able to campaign for President in the recent election? Of course, hiding from the government does not mean that the government has arrested or detained you; it means that you are afraid you will be arrested, but it doesn’t mean that your fear is reasonable or that you would have been arrested if you hadn’t hidden.

  61. But your reliance on Venezuelan state-owned media sources and claims by the ambassadors of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua certainly does shed light on what you meant by “opposition journalists.”

  62. There was no “Junta” or dictatorship, only a civilian government that replaced a guy who was lawfully rejected by the country’s Supreme Court.
    Uh-huh.

    Absolutely none of which disputes my point, namely, that Senor Zelaya was not replaced by a military junta or a dictatorship, but rather by a civilian government. A civilian government which then proceeded to hold elections on schedule, complete with opposition parties.

  63. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Honduras clears the decks for “Pepe” Lobo’s inauguration

Comments are closed.