Honduras Thread: Coup spokesman calls Obama a racial slur

[Az]

isn't it more of a CIA operation, usually?

[Az]

I am just saying because Ive seen americas; public foreign policity in the middle east go from "I have a dream" to "ARRGHHH I AM MELTING' in, like, 2 months.

[chequita guevara]

The military obeyed the legislative and judicial branches in removing an executive who had broken the law. In fact, the President had done something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. It's not something to get worked up about. Honduras is fine.

When the President and legislature are of the same party, and the legislature still kicks him out, that's a system that's working.

That's the official line. It's a lie, however.

The Honduran constitution forbids any elected official from attempting to extend the term of the President, who is limited to one term, of four years. Anyone who attempts the change the constitution to allow this is immediately stripped of power.

Zeleya was holding a non-binding referendum which was to ask the people of Honduras if they wanted a question on the ballot in the next election if they to hold a constitutional convention. That's all. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that because at a constitutional convention, anything can happen, including changing that section of the constitution, that the vote was unconstitutional and Zeleya should be removed from power. The fact that a constituent assembly wouldn't even have been assembled until after Zeleya was no longer President, his term being up in January, kinda puts the lie to that claim.

Zeleya was removed because he was increasingly moving to the left, enacting policies that helped the people, like instituting a higher minimum wage, looking to institute land reform, etc. That put him at odds with the Honduran oligarchy, and so they ousted him.

From from this being a system working, it was a coup d'etat.

[Kuciwalker]

Zeleya was holding a non-binding referendum which was to ask the people of Honduras if they wanted a question on the ballot in the next election if they to hold a constitutional convention. That's all. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that because at a constitutional convention, anything can happen, including changing that section of the constitution, that the vote was unconstitutional and Zeleya should be removed from power. The fact that a constituent assembly wouldn't even have been assembled until after Zeleya was no longer President, his term being up in January, kinda puts the lie to that claim.

No it doesn't.

"The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that because at a constitutional convention, anything can happen, including changing that section of the constitution, that the vote was unconstitutional"

has nothing to do with whether Zelaya would be President at the time.

[chequita guevara]

Yes it does, since he was not trying to extend his term, and thus, was not violating the constitution.

[Kuciwalker]

Dude, you're not a Honduran constitutional scholar, I'm not a Honduran constitutional scholar, and the only people who are authorities on the subject (their freaking Supreme Court) ruled that it was unconstitutional.

[chequita guevara]

You don't have to be a scholar when basic reality is involved. If you are not going to be in office, you cannot, logically, be attempting to extend your term in office.

[Kuciwalker]

Except that is not what the Constitution is reported to prohibit. All reporting I've seen has claimed that it prohibits attempting to change term limits, not attempting to extend your own term.

[Kuciwalker]

If you have the text (preferably an English translation) of the Honduran Constitution, quote the relevant article and explain why you think the Supreme Court of Honduras is clearly wrong in their interpretation.

[chequita guevara]

No habla español?

[Kuciwalker]

Habla francés, por tanto un poco de español, but certainly not well enough to reasonably interpret a law.

[DinoDoc]

Looks like the coup may outlast US government outrage.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/73234.html

U.S. drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — The Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.

The new position was contained in a letter this week to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras.

While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return. "Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," said the letter to Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The new U.S. position is likely to undercut diplomatic efforts to bring about Zelaya's return, analysts said.

It may in time help the administration win confirmation for three top State Department officials President Barack Obama has appointed to deal with the region. Senate Republicans have put their nominations on hold to protest U.S. policy in Honduras.

Some 1,000 pro-Zelaya demonstrators protested outside the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa, Thursday after the State Department letter was made public in the Honduran media.

While condemning the overthrow of Zelaya and his pre-dawn expulsion, the Aug. 4 letter said that Zelaya, who's allied with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, was largely to blame for his plight.

"We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal," said the letter, signed by Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma.

"I think this could open the door for an alternative option as president," said Jorge Yllesca, a political consultant based in Honduras, meaning that interim President Roberto Micheletti might try to end the political crisis by stepping aside, not for Zelaya but for the president of the Congress or the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The crisis began when Zelaya insisted on staging a June 28 referendum on a constitutional change to allow him to seek re-election. Zelaya had only six more months in office before a non-Chavez ally was likely to take over as Honduras' next president.

Chavez and two of his South American allies, Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, have won public approval for new constitutions that are allowing them to extend their terms in office.

The Honduran Congress, the attorney general's office and the state prosecutor all advised Zelaya that Honduras' constitution didn't permit the referendum.

He went ahead anyway and was ousted.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a conservative Republican congresswoman from Miami, applauded the State Department letter.

"It seems that the U.S. is stepping a bit away from its unabashed support for Zelaya," Ros-Lehtinen said in a telephone interview.

She'd prefer that the Obama administration break ranks with the rest of Latin America and Europe and drop its support for Zelaya.

"To reinstate Zelaya to power would be the wrong message to send," Ros-Lehtinen said. "It would say you can violate the law, go against the Congress and get away with it, and the U.S. will stand with you."

Republican senators angered by the administration's Honduras policy put a hold on Obama's nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to be assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs, along with two key ambassadorial nominees.

Lugar, in a July 30 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said he hoped that her explanation could "improve the prospects" of confirming Valenzuela this week.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Wednesday that he was "glad to see the State Department is finally beginning to walk back its support for Manuel Zelaya," but an aide said that DeMint hadn't lifted his hold on Valenzuela's nomination because despite the policy shift, Obama still supports Zelaya's return to power.

The Obama administration has taken a series of low-level steps to show its dissatisfaction with the Micheletti government.

The U.S. has revoked diplomatic visas for five Hondurans associated with the Micheletti government. It's suspended anti-drug operations from the U.S. military base in Honduras, withheld $16 million in defense aid and warned that it might not disburse the final 10 percent of money for Honduras under a $250 million aid program.

The U.S. also has strongly supported the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who's proposed a compromise plan to reinstate Zelaya with limited powers. Micheletti has rejected the plan, while Zelaya has accepted it.

The letter to Lugar said that U.S. officials wouldn't go much further.

"We have rejected calls for crippling economic sanctions," it said.

The letter comes at a time when Zelaya is expressing his unhappiness with the Obama administration.

"The United States only needs to tighten its fist, and the coup will last five seconds," Zelaya said Tuesday in Mexico, adding that 70 percent of Honduras' economy depends on trade and remittances from the United States.

Mark Weisbrodt, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said the Obama administration could seize the U.S. bank accounts of Hondurans associated with the coup and withdraw their tourist and diplomatic visas to the U.S.

"These are steps that are very easy to take and would have an impact," Weisbrodt said.

Dennis Jett, a former U.S. ambassador who now teaches at Pennsylvania State University, said the Obama administration has followed a middle course because it has competing goals.

"On one hand, our interests are saved if this guy is not in power or allowed to violated the constitution and perpetuate himself in power," Jett said. "But we do have the obligation to be supportive of democracy."

(James Rosen in Washington contributed to this article.)

[Heraclitus]

Except that is not what the Constitution is reported to prohibit. All reporting I've seen has claimed that it prohibits attempting to change term limits, not attempting to extend your own term.

An important distinction.