Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 12:34pm PT
|
Blue, you're still trying to spin this thing according to what you think or believe. You're overlooking the plain facts of the case. You don't have to agree with our Government's interpretation or response to the facts, but it's no use to anyone to try and cook the facts to fit your point of view.
The first fact is that the Honduran Supreme Court did not kick Zelaya out of Honduras. They ORDERED him to be expatriated. The MILITARY carried out the order, kidnapping Zelaya at gun point and forceably deported him against his will. That's the fact of it: Supreme Court ordered him out; military got rid of him.
Next fact: Expatriation of Zelaya was a violation of the Honduran Constitution.[37] Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution forbids expatriating or handing over of Hondurans to foreign countries. That's the fact of it as the constitution was written at the time of Zelaya's deportation. The Supreme Court broke the law in ordering the president forcably deported to another country.
If you want to argue that they did NOT break the law, then we have to move to an investigation of Article 102 of the Honduras constitution.
This is a classic case of Honduras wanting immediate gratification of a need - to dispose of Zelaya. It does not matter to the US or many other contries that Zelaya was a buffoon and a law breaker himself, trying to hold onto power.
The Honduras unlawfully acceleratd the democratic process by tossing the bum out. In my mind, he deserved it, but they denied him a trial and all of the messy stuff, and that's what the stink is all about.
In short: The rhubarb is about the Houduras Supreme Court breaking article 102 of their own constitution - the quality of Zelaya's character, good or bad, is a totally different affair.
It's fine if you believe our government should overlook article 102 and forget Zelaya, if that's how you feel. But to blast the Secretary of State to "wake up" because she does not understand the situation as you do is a bit much.
JL
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 12:45pm PT
|
John, Zelaya was the one who violated his own constitution;
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
He was "expatriated" because of the nature of his actions. He wasn't forced to stay in a particular country, he could move about freely.
He was kicked out of his country due to the revolutionary nature of his actions.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 12:58pm PT
|
This is interesting;
The document is quite clear about this: Article 4 states that attempts to violate the alternation in the office of the presidency constitute "treason." Article 42.5 even says that any person who incites, promotes or supports presidential re-election will lose his or her citizenship.
And Article 239 says that any person who has held the office of the presidency cannot be president or vice president again. Furthermore, it states that the officeholder "that violates this provision or proposes its reform, as well as those who support such a violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
and;
Given Zelaya's repeated and deliberate actions against the constitution and the rule of law, on June 25 the attorney general filed an injunction with the Supreme Court asking for his arrest. The next day, the Court unanimously issued an arrest warrant and ordered the army to enforce it.
However, something went wrong. Instead of arresting him, the army disobeyed the terms of the arrest warrant by expelling Zelaya from the country. That was a clear violation the constitution; Article 102 protects a citizen from being expatriated.
The army claims it did so in order to avoid clashes with Zelaya's supporters, who might have tried to storm the facilities where he'd be held. That could have resulted in bloodshed and a terrible loss of lives.
But the army acted illegally, and the attorney general's office has already filed an investigation of the military officers' decision to expel Zelaya. The army has stated that they will comply with any court ruling in this case.
President Obama has declared that this "coup" was illegal. But if he had read the Honduran constitution--or even been provided with a brief analysis of the document's details--it seems unlikely he could maintain such a firm conclusion.
from here;
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 01:11pm PT
|
If you are interested in a sort of left Christian view of things in Latin America; here's a speaker; tonight (Tues 23rd) in Berkeley--------------
Rev. Philip Wheaton: Neoliberal Economics and US Global Domination
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 7:30 PM
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Hall
1924 Cedar (@Bonita), Berkeley www.bfuu.org
The Rev. Philip Wheaton of Washington, D.C., will speak on neoliberal economics as essential to the US plan for global domination with US corporations abroad: cheap labor from Latin America; and our wall of shame. Response by Danny Sheehan, a founder of the Christic Institute. Questions and comments by the audience will follow his response.
Phil Wheaton is an Episcopal priest who has been engaged in Latin American solidarity work for his entire adult life, since 1952. For twenty years he was he was the Director of the Ecumenical Program for Inter-American Communication & Action (EPICA) in Washington, D.C. He was deeply involved in the Sanctuary Movement during the 1980s, lived in Costa Rica and Nicaragua (1988-1990), and is a published author and co-author of thirteen books. He has worked for the last fifteen years with a Christian Base Community in northern Nicaragua and with the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Committee in Washington, D.C. He is currently co-pastor of the ecumenical Community of Christ in our Nations capital. Wheatons latest and forthcoming book deals with imperialism and religious fundamentalism in its various forms. It is titled Flowering of the Prophetic Word and is co-authored with William Wipfler.
Co-sponsored by BFUU Social Justice Ctee (510-495-5132) and the Chiapas Support Ctee
Donations welcomed but no one turned away
Wheelchair accessible
For more info: 510-236-1226
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:10pm PT
|
Blue wrote: "Given Zelaya's repeated and deliberate actions against the constitution and the rule of law, on June 25 the attorney general filed an injunction with the Supreme Court asking for his arrest. The next day, the Court unanimously issued an arrest warrant and ordered the army to enforce it."
That is exactly what happend so far as I know.
"However, something went wrong. Instead of arresting him, the army disobeyed the terms of the arrest warrant by expelling Zelaya from the country. That was a clear violation the constitution; Article 102 protects a citizen from being expatriated."
Perfectly stated. Our government's issue with this entire case is just this simple, is exactly what you stated above - this "clear violation of the constitution." It's no more complicated than that.
The question is - how does it NOW get sorted out??
JL
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
|
They arrest Zelaya and he stands trial.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:14pm PT
|
How many here could tell me anything about the Honduran constitution if I unplugged your google machines?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:18pm PT
|
Ain't the internet grand???
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:26pm PT
|
What's the whole Tibet thing to so many people, DMT?
I think it's an interesting political situation.
Oh, and their constitution is a trip!!!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 02:52pm PT
|
I think there is little doubt that Zelaya is a Chavez-want-to-be.
Call it Socialist, neo-Marxist, Commie, whatever...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 03:16pm PT
|
I agree somewhat, Dingus, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2009 - 11:28pm PT
|
Dingus wrote:
"I don't think its mine or your place, nor any American's including the President, to dictate to the people of any other country how to manage their own affairs.
This is the one and only area where Pat Buchanan and I see eye to eye."
I believe this too, up to a point. For instance, I don't agree that any militarized nation can stand by if, say, another Holocaust was set in motion. The problem is - where to draw the line. So-called preemptive strikes are pretty sketchy for the most part.
One thing seems certain: exporting democracy, or trying to force (militarily) a democratic system on another country, is pretty much over as a tactical strategy simply because no one can afford it - or no sane nation wants to foot the bill for it - over the long haul. Once we're out of Iraq and Afg., I suspect it will be almost impossible to muster public support for any more invasions say to stop actual genocide. And if said genocide is happening in Palestine or anywhere in Africa, those people all die because Americans don't give a sh#t about either area.
JL
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:28pm PT
|
Where one falls on the question whether or not the U.S. should intervene in the government of another nation, as with most things political, usually depends on one's point of view. It might seem incredible now, but a sizeable majority of Chileans supported the military coup de etat in Chile, both in 1973 and for a number of years thereafter (at least until Pinochet's austere laissez-faire economic policies started killing the middle class [figuratively] and the poor [quite literally]). Yet a lot of people on the political left were outraged that one of their own had been booted out of power (notwithstanding the fact that, under Salvador Allende, Chile was in a free-fall toward anarchy and a bloody revolution and civil war) and would have applauded the immediate use of force to intervene.
(True story: When I was a Mormon missionary in Chile in 1980, I had a conversation with an educated woman of German descent, who told me that the Chilean economy was getting so bad under Pinochet's economic advisers, the infamous "Chicago Boys," that they should stop pronouncing the first syllable. [Inside joke for you Spanish speakers out there.])
I agree that the U.S. should butt out of Honduras, but it's the Obama administration that isn't letting the existing constitutional order--or, for that matter, the will of the Honduran people (the vast majority of whom either don't want Mel Zelaya back or couldn't give a crap if he is reinstated for what would be the last four months of his term)--play out in Honduras. As someone I know said, this administration's stance on Honduras can only be explained by inexperience in foreign-policy matters or a strong sympathy for all things Marxist. It is the latter possibility that has import for us as Americans.
(By the way, I'm rooting for "Los Catrachos" to make it to the World Cup next year; my son brought me home a replica of their "away" jersey, and I wear it with pride. I expect them to beat the U.S. in Honduras on October 10, after which I'll be praying that the U.S. beats Costa Rica on the 14th.)
|
|
midarockjock
climber
USA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2009 - 02:59pm PT
|
Largo,
I don't know their laws over there. Are you aware
US military personnel loose Habeus Corpus rights?
I believe it's also been ruled by the court here to be
correct.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2009 - 03:18pm PT
|
Jumping back to the beginning of this thread...
Pappy: "I have never been so pissed in my life, and if things had gone the other way I was prepared to take up arms. I would have felt the same way if the positions had been reversed between Bush and Gore. The upshot is that I will never again vote for a Dem until they repudiate the unconstitutional and illegal positions they adopted in 2000."
Dude, have you actually read the SCOTUS majority and minority opinions in Gore v. Bush (they're quite short and in plain english, no need to be afraid)? It stands as one of the most activist judicial decisions ever made by the court. And where was the vaunted Republican cry of "states' rights!" - utterly silent. Hey, SCOTUS overruled the Florida State Supreme Court's final ruling on the matter - no ruling could ever be more hypocritical or activist on the part of Republicans. If there was ever a instance of SCOTUS bitch-slapping the Constitution - Gore v. Bush was it. No supporter of that decision has any right to ever again speak the words "states' rights".
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:15pm PT
|
Well, the Catrachos made it into the World Cup on a miracle goal...by the U.S....against Costa Rica...in the final seconds of stoppage time. What an amazing turn of events! (Man, I hope Costa Rica is able to take it to Uruguay in the playoff!)
As for the political situation in Honduras, once more we read in the mainstream media that an agreement has been negotiated that will reinstate Mel Zelaya as president. Only, we've read similar (false) stories at least a dozen times since June, which makes me wonder if the media aren't trying to will it into reality.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 10:31pm PT
|
As for the political situation in Honduras, once more we read in the mainstream media that an agreement has been negotiated that will reinstate Mel Zelaya as president. Only, we've read similar (false) stories at least a dozen times since June, which makes me wonder if the media aren't trying to will it into reality.
Good for you for paying attention. Micheletti is denying all those reports as false. There is no deal to return Zelaya to power.
Ironically, Micheletti was in favor of MAYBE letting him serve out his term and retire, but the Court said, "No way, he's a criminal and needs to be prosecuted".
Good for them. Sit it out for another month, hold elections, and then move on.
With or without US support. It's a shame the stance that the State Dept has taken on this. We used to support legality and democracy.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2009 - 11:40pm PT
|
It's interesting for me to read people commenting on the position or stance that Obama has taken on Honduras, implying for the most part that the president is supposed to DO something to influence the political landscape of another country. I'm finding this kind of hold-over thinking to be fairly out of touch with current realities and the prevailing opinions of most Central and South American countries, who are entirely sick of the US meddling in the affairs of other sovereign contries.
What is is that (some) people want Obama to do, exactly, that would not violate the hands-off policy demanded by virtually all Latino nations. And for whom would these actions serve in terms of policical position and the right for self-determination that we, as Americans, value so highly?
JL
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2009 - 04:17pm PT
|
Well, the 2009 presidential election has taken place in Honduras, and it appears the U.S. will recognize the legitimacy of the president-elect, Porfirio Lobo, when he assumes office in January. Notably, the governments of Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina say they will not recognize the election results, despite the fact that the candidates were known prior to Mel Zelaya's ouster in June. One has to wonder what Zelaya himself will do at the end of what would have been his complete term as the Honduran president and he no longer has any kind of plausible claim on the office.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!