July 1, 2009

That was no coup, that was constitutional law.

"The military didn't oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own but instead followed an order of the Supreme Court. It also quickly turned power over to the president of the Honduran Congress, a man from the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The legislature and legal authorities all remain intact."

But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?

217 comments:

1 – 200 of 217   Newer›   Newest»
NKVD said...

Obama will always side with despots and communists. His parents were communists, his mentor was a communist, and he proves, every day, that he too, is a communist.

If he was in favor of freedom, human rights or capitalism, wouldn't he take a different path?

traditionalguy said...

Because the goal for all Marxists is the destruction of capitalism. A constitutional system of government respecting private property is the natural enemy of Obama, Castro, and Chavez. They obviously want the Honduran/Nicaraguan Red Armies financed from Iran to roll into southern Mexico and destabilize the Mexican Government, Then Obama will have to bring home the Troops and put them into Fort Hood where they will then be needed, until Jimmy Carter can arrange an armistice by giving back California like he did our Canal across Panama.

John said...

This is really bad. Obama is actively siding with a two bit thug who is allied with our enemies. The people of Hondurus are trying to save their democracy. And our President is actively helping one of our enemies destroy it. It is totally inexplicable without reverting to really over the top conspiracy theories about Obama actually hating the US.

There is really no defending Obama on this. It seems pretty clear by his behavior regarding Iran and now Hondurus that Obama really doesn't have much use for Democracy or the rule of law. To think he has only been in office six months. This is going to be a very scary four years. Eveytime I think, no way is Obama that awful, he proves me wrong.

Rumpletweezer said...

Because he's a punk and a thug with no moral compass?

Fred4Pres said...

Andrew Sullivan defended Barack Obama for days for saying nothing on Iran, claiming neocoms were baiting him and even justifying when Obama said there was no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

So why not stay out of this Honduras coup, especially since it did involve a true constitutional crisis between different branches of government? I wonder how Sully will distinguish this in Obama's favor.

Has Trig Palin been in Honduras? That little troublemaking imp!

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Careful now, gang, watch those nasty comments about El Presidente Obama! El Jefe O, will use his 'evil eye" turning us into stone!

Of course, the media will applaud that result; "See, there's change with little hope!"

Maguro said...

Ideological kinship. Obama, Chavez and Zelaya all share the same "nuanced" view of the USA.

Aaron said...

John,

The other indefensible part is the selective interferance. He could barely be brought to condemn the beatings, shootings, etc. in Iran in its complete sham of an election, but jumps all over this. Sheesh. Not only is it morally baffling, but strategically stupid, too. if you take down the iran regime, you take away a major source of the insurgency in iraq, funding of hezbollah and hamas, and a major buyer of NK nuclear stuff. Oh, and get a little payback for 30 years of supporting terror and evil around the world.

The only theory that I have heard that explains it without resort to calling him pro-dictator or something is that Obama is reflexively in favor of executive power. maybe that explains it, but it doesn't make it any less inexplicable.

earth to Obama. in america our soldiers swear to defend the constitution, not your scrawny butt. to the extent that they will protect you it is because the constitution commands it, not the other way around. one of the great bulwarks of liberty in this country is the soldier who will not just follow orders but occassionally wonder if what he is doing is right and constitutional. If George W. Bush had decided in january to declare himself president for life, i would like to think our military would have done the same thing. i see no good reason to think anything is different in honduras.

Btw, i will add one other theory: bigotry. maybe he sees the military throwing out a president in south america and it is all too easy to leap to the worst conclusion. indeed, maybe he is one of those people who thinks that people in certain parts of the world are just not ready for democracy. that would explain his attitude about democracy generally, having a cavalier attitude about it in the middle east, and so on.

John said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_drug_allegations

Tin pot wanna be dictator linked to running drugs. What a surprise. This is really the kool aide moment for liberals. Anyone who defends Obama on this will defend him on anything. No doubt someone as depraved as Sullivan will find a way.

Larry J said...

Why is he (and the UN) supporting a would be dictator over that country's constitution? Precedent!

It doesn't surprise me that the UN would side with a would be dictator against the law and wishes of another country. It sickens me that a US president would do so.

Fred4Pres said...

Hmmmmm Hillary disagreed with Da One on the Iran silence? And Hillary was more restrained about criticizing the coup.

Somehow I get the feeling Obama deals more sharply with Hillary than with Ahmadinejad.

Freeman Hunt said...

Eveytime I think, no way is Obama that awful, he proves me wrong.

No kidding. Amazing the number of times someone has relayed a news report to me about Obama, and I've said, "No, that didn't happen. You have it wrong or the reporter made a mistake," only to find out later that the report was true.

So much for all the fleeting optimism I had that he wouldn't be so bad. He's far far worse than I had imagined.

Statists, statists everywhere.

John said...

"Btw, i will add one other theory: bigotry. maybe he sees the military throwing out a president in south america and it is all too easy to leap to the worst conclusion. indeed, maybe he is one of those people who thinks that people in certain parts of the world are just not ready for democracy. that would explain his attitude about democracy generally, having a cavalier attitude about it in the middle east, and so on."


I think that is the answer. Obama is easily the most naive and stupid President we have ever elected. He honestly doesn't think someone like Chavez is a threat to their own country letalone the rest of the world. Never ascribe mallace to what can be explained by stupidity. Obama certainly has enough stupidity to explain a lot of his actions.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?

What do you mean 'alarmingly'? Hell, I'd be shocked and awed if he took any position opposite of Chavez and Castro.

Oh and I thought he wasn't going to meddle in soveriegn nation's internal affairs? Or is that just another lie we should get used to?

AllenS said...

Where is Alpha Liberal, to explain all of this to us idiot right wingers?

Where is his "We won, get used to it!"

El Presidente said...

What's Honduras going to do nuke us?

John said...

"Where is Alpha Liberal, to explain all of this to us idiot right wingers?"

The internet cafe at the institution where he and Jeremy live doesn't open until 8 am Pacific Daylight Time.

Roger J. said...

So everyone seems to have hit on the right answers, so I have nothing to add.

Fred4Pres said...

Inspector Sullivan will never give up! In the words of Sully, "I will get you Sarah Palin and that little trouble maker Trig too!"

Sarah and Trig are obvious to blame for Iran, Honduras and the financial meltdown. Oh to the everlasting shame of John McCain for ever unleashing these demons from their frozen world up north.

Sully's Irish is up because this is such a distraction from promoting our President and all his actions.

Anthony said...

There is no good answer here. The Honduran president was probably acting unconstitutionally. And given his alliance with Chavez, you have to wonder about his motives.

But do you really want soldiers out in the streets? Soldiers, even those acting in support of the constitution and legislature against an overreacting executive, have a habit of not returning to their barracks so easily (ask those who initially supported Oliver Cromwell).

John said...

'But do you really want soldiers out in the streets? Soldiers, even those acting in support of the constitution and legislature against an overreacting executive, have a habit of not returning to their barracks so easily (ask those who initially supported Oliver Cromwell)."

If the President calls an unconstitutional referendun, fires the head of the military after he refuses to go ahead with the referendum, sends a group of thugs to attack a military base in order to grab the ballots for the illegal referendum, and the Congress and Supreme Court both agree that the President needs to be removed from office, yeah I do want troops on the streets. Hondurans were left with the choice of calling out the military or let this guy bully his way to being dictator for life. Sometimes, you have to take the best of bad options.

T said...

The Honduras affair is becoming a filter, separating liberal from leftist. It's been fascinating to watch.

Jim said...

Fred -

"Hmmmmm Hillary disagreed with Da One on the Iran silence? And Hillary was more restrained about criticizing the coup."

Welcome to Washington. This is Hillary Clinton trying to keep her own political ambitions alive through selected leaks to the press.

She can read the polls, and she knows how unpopular Obama's response on Iran has been, so she leaks a story that covers her own behind to insulate herself after she inevitably resigns from the position in order to run for president.

Look for more leaks every time the polls show that Obama makes an unpopular foreign policy decision.

Salamandyr said...

To be (a little) fair to Obama, and the rest of the world leaders who jumped on this, at first glance what happened in Honduras looks like a military coup. Not until you see the facts on the ground does the situation clarify into what we know know to be true--that this was a legitimate exercise.

Of course that doesn't excuse the enthusiasm with which he jumped on this situation compared to his "wait and see" attitude toward Iran. As one person says "he speaks softly to our enemies and uses a big stick on our friends."

John said...

"To be (a little) fair to Obama, and the rest of the world leaders who jumped on this, at first glance what happened in Honduras looks like a military coup. Not until you see the facts on the ground does the situation clarify into what we know know to be true--that this was a legitimate exercise."

I think the President and world leaders are perfectly aware of the facts on the ground. And they can thus be held to a higher standard than some drunk mal adjusted hippie screaming about another military coup in Latin America.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

To be (a little) fair to Obama, and the rest of the world leaders who jumped on this, at first glance what happened in Honduras looks like a military coup. Not until you see the facts on the ground does the situation clarify into what we know know to be true--that this was a legitimate exercise.

Actually we are being fair to Obama. Until he knew the facts on the ground he should have kept his mouth shut. Especially in light of his previous commitments to not 'meddling' in a soveriegn nation's internal affairs.

Congratulations America. You elected a fucking rock star to lead the country. We may as well have Brittney Spears running the foreign office. I can't imagine she could do worse than this moron.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obama is proving in a daily basis that even the simplest aspects of the office are above his pay grade.

martha said...

Ann asks: "But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?"

because birds of a feather flock together--Chavez, Castro, Ortega, and yes, alas! our dear leader and former constitutional law professor, Obama.
Constitution be damned.

Bob said...

Ann Althouse: But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?

Well, that was as rhetorical question as I've ever read on this blog.

Shanna said...

Hmmmmm Hillary disagreed with Da One on the Iran silence? And Hillary was more restrained about criticizing the coup.
You know, Hillary isn’t my favorite person, but she did always seem to have a better handle on world affairs than he did. This is just one more example.

I was wondering when there would be a Honduras thread. I actually spent a week in Tegucigalpa when I was 13. I wish the best to all the Honduran people.

It sounds like the old president was trying to set himself up for life. And anybody who is friends with Chavez is bad news.

Big Mike said...

But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?

Maybe because he regards the Constitution as an impediment instead of a foundation?

AllenS said...

It's going to be an interesting 8 to 10 years. Or, maybe more.

Jason said...

To be (a little) fair to Obama, and the rest of the world leaders who jumped on this, at first glance what happened in Honduras looks like a military coup.

He's the f***ing President of the United States. I don't think it's unfair to expect him to look beyond a "first glance" before spouting off his mouth making policy statements and condemning actions his Oneness doesn't begin to understand.

Salamandyr said...

In addendum to my post above, it's crazy how few (somewhere like none) of the media outlets are reporting that this was not just some power grab by the military.

The fact that the Army acted on orders from their Supreme Court, and handed power over to the legislature, or that the President was engaged in illegal activities is completely glossed over.

It's maddening.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The fact that the Army acted on orders from their Supreme Court, and handed power over to the legislature, or that the President was engaged in illegal activities is completely glossed over.

Well those are 'bad facts' that get in the way of the overall goal.

It's maddening.

No, it's consistent.

Salamandyr said...

No, it's consistent.

And for the record, based on their website, Fox News isn't much better in this regard.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Honestly I can't be shocked by any of this. The man admitted in his own fucking autobiography that he gravitated to Marxists in college. His own father was a Marxist. His campaign posters were unabashedly Soviet in thier appearance. I guess 53% of the electorate is either clueless or simply don't care.

John said...

Hoosier

That 53% is made up mostly of clueless guilty white people who wanted to exercise their own racial demons by voting for a black President and black people who didn't care because they wanted one of their own to win.

raf said...

Perhaps he just wants to set a precedent for 2016....

former law student said...

why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?

Perhaps because the heads of all American countries are taking the same side -- the anti-military-coup side? Along with the heads of the European Union. Most likely because Obama stands for the rule of law.

But it would have been interesting had Justice Rehnquist worked with Colin Powell to oust G.W. Bush, to see if the WSJ would have determined that to be legitimate.

PatCA said...

Why? Because Obama is a leftist. He is not "left leaning," he is a leftist. And he thus believes that leftist leaders would live up to the utopian vision if only the red dog imperialist US would just butt out.

That's his version of history, and it will take a war or two before he ever sees the other side--if he ever does.

John said...

"But it would have been interesting had Justice Rehnquist worked with Colin Powell to oust G.W. Bush, to see if the WSJ would have determined that to be legitimate."

No it would have been Reighquist working with John Ashcroft and the speaker of the House to remove Bush after Bush fired the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for refusing to hold an election to determine if Bush could continue to be President after 8 years and then had a mob of armed Republicans attack Fort Hood and take the ballats away from the military. That is what happened here. At that point, when the President is acting illegally and the other two branches agree that something has to be done, the military must be called out. The miltiary takes an oath to defend the Constitution not the President.

There is no defending this action. You only make yourself look foolish by trying.

Jim said...

fls -

"Most likely because Obama stands for the rule of law. "

If that's the case, then why didn't Obama condemn the president's illegal power grab in the first place?

Since we've tossed aside any pretense that the US wasn't going to meddle in a purely internal Honduran affair, then there can be no justification for not having spoken up sooner against an illegal attempt by their president to become dictator for life.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama is standing up for the "rule of law," and he failed because he refused to condemn the president's action in the first place. Or he's taking the side of a Leftist wannabe dictator, and he failed by trying to step on the wheels of democracy.

So in which Obama failure do you most believe?

NKVD said...

Come on, you are arguing with a liberal. Claiming that they cannot make sense or explain away their hatred of human rights is just silly.

They are liberals!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Perhaps because the heads of all American countries are taking the same side -- the anti-military-coup side? Along with the heads of the European Union. Most likely because Obama stands for the rule of law.

You mean the rule of law where Zelaya was breaking the law by ordering an illegal referendum in violation of the Honduran Supreme Court?

Obama stands for the rule of law as long as it doesn't interfere with his goals (see GM and bankruptcy laws). In that situation he is squarely on the sides of the Castros and Chavezs of the world.

Veeshir said...

I have to admit, I thought I would find a lot of defenses of Obama in here. I was surprised not to.

Best line
The Honduras affair is becoming a filter, separating liberal from leftist.

Yup.

Dave said...

I haven't seen any accounts of where the supreme court 'ordered' the military to arrest the president. Could someone please point me to one? I did see reports where the Supreme Court issued a justification for the arrest after the fact. That is different than ordering it.

But let's say the Supreme Court does order it. Does that necessarily make it constitutional? Of course not. While I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution, I would imagine they have a process for removing their president which involves an impeachment trial. That would be the constitutional route. From what I understand this has not occured. And in order for the removal of the president to be legal, it would have to occur.

John said...

"But let's say the Supreme Court does order it. Does that necessarily make it constitutional? Of course not. While I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution, I would imagine they have a process for removing their president which involves an impeachment trial. That would be the constitutional route. From what I understand this has not occured. And in order for the removal of the president to be legal, it would have to occur."

Even if you are right, how is this anything other than an internal constitutional crisis? It is not a coup. This is an example of where the US needs to stay out of an other country's internal politics.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But let's say the Supreme Court does order it. Does that necessarily make it constitutional? Of course not. While I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution,...

You should have stopped right there. You make a definitive comment that it's not constitutional and then admit you're not an expert on the Honduran constitution. I'll wager you aren't even a rank amateur. You should not assume that the Honduran constitution is remotely similar to ours.

Flexo said...

Why is Barack Obama taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez??

Because Obama is an authoritarian, autocratic thug who is enamored of authoritarian, autocratic thugs.

Obama is not about "freedom," he is not about "liberty," he is not about fostering climates of opportunity to allow people to excel and prosper on their own.

Obama is about promising "security" from the government, he is about control, he is about government running your life because government, i.e. he and other "elites," know better how to run your life than you do.

He is a neo-Marxist thug who is doing what he can to destroy the existing order, so that he can reinvent and reconstruct, not only government and society, but reconstruct man as well. It is the old Marxist dream of destroying the world so as to recreate a paradise. And, like everything Marxist, it only ends up creating hell, not heaven.

Dave said...

"Even if you are right, how is this anything other than an internal constitutional crisis? It is not a coup. This is an example of where the US needs to stay out of an other country's internal politics."

When the military forcibly removes the President from power without legal authority to do so, it is a coup.

"You should have stopped right there."

No, I included that on purpose. Because appparently everyone else on Althouse's site is an expert on the Honduran system. If they were not, how else could they so boldly proclaim Obama's deficiencies on this matter?

"You should not assume that the Honduran constitution is remotely similar to ours."

I didn't assume this. I got it from the WSJ article Althouse quotes.

Robert Cook said...

Here's another point of view:

http://www.counterpunch.org/
thorensen07012009.html

I'm no expert on the subject, but the author appears more conversant with the facts than anyone here. He makes a convincing argument that Zelaya's actions were legal, (and, by the way, non-binding.)

The author also points out that Zelaya's term legally extends to January 2010, a half a year away. Our (NYC) mayor Bloomberg, nearing the end of his second and legally-mandated final term, recently successfully moved to have New York's term limits law erased so he may run for a third term.

Should New Yorkers have called out the appropriate authorities to arrest Bloomberg for "subverting" the people's will?

Jason (the commenter) said...

My Twitter response:

I don't know why Obama is freaking out about Honduras. They only tried to stop a President from usurping the constitution... Oh!

NKVD said...

Cookie weighs in - did you vote for Zelaya? I thought you were a Nader guy. Heck, a despot is a despot, right? Keep up the good work - eventually your socialist utopia will arrive.

LarsPorsena said...

"Our (NYC) mayor Bloomberg, nearing the end of his second and legally-mandated final term, recently successfully moved to have New York's term limits law erased so he may run for a third term."

I 'm going to assume he did this legally without abrogating any NY laws. So, your point is...??

EnigmatiCore said...

Did you really expect different?

EnigmatiCore said...

"When the military forcibly removes the President from power without legal authority to do so, it is a coup. "

True.

Excellent explanation as to why this is not a coup!

Sy said...

We warned you Ann, Obama is a socialist at heart. After EVERYTHING Obama has done, his behavior thus far, are you STILL questioning the true nature of Obama?

REALLY????

John said...

Rober Cook,

Latin America has a history of Presidents getting themselves elected for life and ending Democratic Rule. Indeed, this is exactly what Chavez did in Venezuala.

For this reason the Honduran Constitution makes it illegal for the President to call a referendum extending his term. This is exactly what the President tried to do. This idea that "it wouldn't have been legally binding" is complete sophestry. If it wasn't legally binding why do it? All he was doing was trying to run a shame election so that he could claim democratic legitimacy once he refused to leave office in 2010.

It should also be noted that the head of the Honduran congress in of Zelaya's own party. This is a not a partisian issue. The people of Honduras acted to save their Democracy from a Chavez thug. There are times when you want the military to step in. This appears to be one of them.

Dave said...

"Excellent explanation as to why this is not a coup!"

Care to back that up?

Robert Cook said...

Here's another view, from two authors who also appear more knowledgable than commenters here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/clark07012009.html

Richard Fagin said...

"But do you really want soldiers out in the streets? Soldiers, even those acting in support of the constitution?"

It would have been better if the legislature had impeached the errant president and removed him from office. It's not clear what mechanism the Honduran consitution provides to remove the president from office, to empower his successor and to command the armed forces in the absecence of an elected executive.

If after a proper removal proceeding, the removed president doesn't go quitely, and on orders from the supreme court and legislature to go after the removed president, yeah, I want soldiers in the street following their lawful orders.

To state that soldiers in the streets tend not to go back to their barracks would no doubt insult the heck out of a lot of National Guard troops called to restore order after one or another emergencies. They go back every time in my experience.

You'll have to do a lot better to convince me the Honduran military wasn't acting entirely properly.

garage mahal said...

Because appparently everyone else on Althouse's site is an expert on the Honduran system. .

It doesn't matter. Chavez keeps them up at night, so it's legal!

Hoosier Daddy said...

When the military forcibly removes the President from power without legal authority to do so, it is a coup.

Well that seems to be the $69 question. The Honduran Supreme Court seems to think there was legal authority. Sorry but in matters of Honduran constitutional law I’ll defer to them.

"You should have stopped right there."

No, I included that on purpose. Because appparently everyone else on Althouse's site is an expert on the Honduran system. If they were not, how else could they so boldly proclaim Obama's deficiencies on this matter?

It seems everyone else is deferring to the statements of the Honduran Supreme Court and Zelaya’s own party members. Obama’s deficiencies in the matter are his apparent inconsistencies in not desiring to ‘meddle in internal affairs of sovereign nations’.

John said...

Rober Cook,

Instead of reading leftist hack groups, how about a real news paper and an actual reporter who covers the area.

"That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

It is obvious what Zelaya was up to and a testiment to the strength of Honduran Democracy that he wasn't able to get away with it. It is sad that liberals in this country are so morally bankrupt they could take his side in this.

Robert Cook said...

John said, "...the Honduran Constitution makes it illegal for the President to call a referendum extending his term. This is exactly what the President tried to do."

John, if you read the article I linked to, (and another I linked to subsequently), you'll learn that Zelaya was not calling for a referendum to extend his term. As the article states: "President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006."

Further on:

"The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term."

Zelaya was ousted for asking that the Honduran people be polled as to whether they want to change the Constitution; he was ousted because the entrenched interests are fearful of what the Honduran people, even in a non-binding poll, might express to be their wishes.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Care to back that up?"

Scroll back up to John's post. Pretty self-explanitory.

Dave said...

"Well that seems to be the $69 question. The Honduran Supreme Court seems to think there was legal authority. Sorry but in matters of Honduran constitutional law I’ll defer to them."

You can defer all you'd like, I'll attempt to think this one through on my own.

The constitution either has a mechanism for removing the president or it doesn't. According to the WJS, it does & that involves an impeachment trial. Without that, and by definition, it wouldn't be constitutional.

former law student said...

then why didn't Obama condemn the president's illegal power grab in the first place?

What illegal power grab? As Robert Cook suggested, what Bloomberg did to erase term limits in New York was more of an illegal power grab than what the President of Honduras did.

Should Obama have sent troops into Manhattan?

It's funny to see right-wingers reflexively tar Obama with epithets like communist, no matter what the cause.

The rest of the world's leaders should weigh in in the next couple of days.

John said...

Robert Cook,

That article is a farce. Oh he just wanted to poll the people. No, he wanted to have a ballot measure to claim legitimacy when he refused to leave power. It is a classic ploy or authoritarian thugs. Again, read the O'Grady account of what actually happened. You know the one in a reputable news source as opposed to a leftist propaganda organ.

John said...

We have seen this movie before. This is ecactly how Chavez destroyed Venezualan Democracy. You just call referendums and get your thugs to fix them and get yourself elected forever. That then allows nasty leftists everywhere to claim your siezing of power is legitimate. The whole thing is pathetic.

EnigmatiCore said...

Robert Cook,

While that may be a true synopsis, that he wanted to perform a non-binding referendum, there are a few other truths that John helpfully provided. Namely:

"The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional",

and

"The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out."

This would be akin to Obama deciding to hold a non-binding Constitutional Convention, the SCOTUS declaring his intention to be unconstitutional and illegal, Attorney General Eric Holder declaring he would uphold the rule of law by arresting anyone defying the Court's order, and Obama deciding to do it anyway. In such a case, I would hope that he would be arrested, and I would further hope that all citizens defend the rule of law by supporting that arrest.

Jim said...

Robert Cook -

Just because the authors of the article say it's so doesn't make it so.

Just a quick look around their site makes it obvious that they have quite the practice of saying things that aren't so and pretending to knowledge that they don't have.

It's one group of Leftists trying to justify the actions of another Leftist, and dressing it up in a language that makes it seem that they have some authoritative knowledge on the subject.

It's the same tactic the Soviets used to get their propaganda reprinted on the front pages of the New York Times time and time again.

One would think that after years of being duped by authoritarian regimes, American Leftists would get tired of being played for fools. Evidently you're so bound up in your ideology that you don't care how foolish you look.

That's fine for you. The rest of will take a heaping helping of reality instead. Thanks, but no thanks.

former law student said...

how about a real news paper and an actual reporter who covers the area.

Yes, how about one? "Mary Anastasia O'Grady" is a member of the WSJ's editorial board. The cited article is clearly labeled Opinion.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady is surely entitled to her own opinion on the legality of what happened in Honduras.

EnigmatiCore said...

Former Law Student,

How shocking to find you backing a leftist power-grab.

Is it an opinion that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum to be unconstitutional?

Is it an opinion that the Honduran Attorney General agreed that the referendum was therefore illegal?

former law student said...

Just because the authors of the article say it's so doesn't make it so.

Just a quick look around their site makes it obvious that they have quite the practice of saying things that aren't so and pretending to knowledge that they don't have.

You noticed? I've noticed that about Murdoch's publications too. You've got to take anything you read in one with a big grain of salt.

John said...

"One would think that after years of being duped by authoritarian regimes, American Leftists would get tired of being played for fools. Evidently you're so bound up in your ideology that you don't care how foolish you look"

People like Cook and Former Law student are not dupes. They know this is bullshit. It is people like you and I who they are trying to make dupes out of.

Robert Cook said...

EnigmatiCore: Except that, if the authors are accurate, Zelaya's move was legal. Again:

"... (Zelaya) invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006."

EnigmatiCore said...

Robert Cook- except for the fact that the authors of that piece are not the ones who get to determine if Zelaya was properly interpreting the Act. That is the job of the Supreme Court, which ruled that he was not.

former law student said...

How shocking to find you backing a leftist power-grab.

I'm sorry, my Orwellian-to-English translator isn't working today. If you're referring to the military coup in Honduras (the only power grab thus far), I thought it was clear I didn't support it. Is the Honduran military leftist?

EnigmatiCore said...

"I'm sorry, my Orwellian-to-English translator isn't working today."

That fully explains why the rest of your post was purely Orwellian in construct:

"If you're referring to the military coup in Honduras (the only power grab thus far),"

An opinion of yours which is not shared by the Honduran Supreme Court, legislature, and Attorney General.

"I thought it was clear I didn't support it. Is the Honduran military leftist?"

No. But, as usual, the side you are supporting is undeniably so.

NightBastard said...

I would hope that a Honduran Supreme Court comprised of wise Latins with the richness of their experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a bunch of white males on althouse.blogspot.com who haven’t lived that life.

Robert Cook said...

So, is the Honduran Supreme Court acting legally when it rules as "illegal" an act previously passed into law without their objection?

Does a difference over interpretation of the law regarding a non-binding public opinion poll that would not, no matter the results, have extended Zelaya's term warrant a military coup of a President whose term is months away from its end?

Jim said...

fls -

"You noticed? I've noticed that about Murdoch's publications too. "

Are you trying to claim that CounterPunch is a Murdoch-owned site?

Because if you're trying to claim that I get my news from Fox, I've got news for you: I can't even tell you the last time I watched it.

But the general advice is good: the news - especially from liberal mouthpieces like the LAT and NYT - is rarely "news." It's usually just a half-truth sprinkled with opinion and slathered with a whole lot of ideology. One would do well to take it "with a grain of salt."

John Lynch said...

The contrast with Iran is interesting. Why isn't this an internal dispute that will only be made worse by our meddling? Certainly we've meddled in Honduras more than most places.

Jim said...

Robert Cook -

If Zelaya hadn't already been openly defying the laws of the country by refusing to reinstate a general - as ordered by the Supreme Court, then perhaps you could be taken seriously.

Your contention is that somehow Zelaya was playing by the rules and some thugs just ruthlessly put him on a plane out of the country because they were power-hungry when that is the farthest thing possible from the truth. That you are so willing to play fast and loose with the facts undermines any credibility you might have on the subject. That your interpretation requires you to ignore the facts is proof that your interpretation is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Start with the facts, and then form an opinion. You're not entitled to start with your opinion and try to work your way backwards.

former law student said...

Are you trying to claim that CounterPunch is a Murdoch-owned site?

Because if you're trying to claim that I get my news from Fox, I've got news for you: I can't even tell you the last time I watched it.

Murdoch bought the WSJ almost two years ago.

elHombre said...

@Robert Cook.

The articles you cite are apparently written by Zelaya supporters, an El Salvadoran and two others of unknown citizenship.

Although it is possible that they know more than commenters here, and even that they are telling the truth, it does seem indisputable that the ultimate arbiter of Honduran Constitutional law is the Honduras Supreme Court. Does it not? Didn't that Court find against Zelaya and order his arrest?

Since ideology always rules lefty minds, observing the obvious is often necessary. Even so, the obvious may not carry the day.

More importantly, the real issue for Americans ought to be Obama's incommensurable responses to the political actions in Iran and Honduras and those with whom he aligns himself.

But thank you for sharing.

Jim said...

Robert Cook -

"So, is the Honduran Supreme Court acting legally when it rules as "illegal" an act previously passed into law without their objection?"

Is our own Supreme Court acting legally when it strikes down as unconstitutional a law that it hadn't previously issued a ruling on?

C'mon now. You're getting ridiculously desperate. A court doesn't have a say until a case is presented before it. That's just simple Civics 101. Trying to pretend otherwise is making you look like you simply don't have a clue how courts work.

Skipper50 said...

One is known by the company he keeps.

Jim said...

fls -

"Murdoch bought the WSJ almost two years ago."

And you think that the only news source on the subject is the WSJ?

You're trying to play some kind of ideological gotcha to defend the indefensible. I'm not playing your game.

Ann may have linked to the WSJ, but you acting like they're the only ones who have pointed out the obviously illegal actions by the Honduran president is dishonest.

When you're willing to actually discuss the issue at hand rather than throw up strawmen, then you'll have something to contribute to the conversation.

EnigmatiCore said...

"act previously passed into law without their objection?"

Using this logic- the only time the Supreme Court of the United States could strike down a law as Unconstitutional would be when those laws were passed?

You don't think your arguments through very well.

former law student said...

The contrast with Iran is interesting. Why isn't this an internal dispute that will only be made worse by our meddling?

Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Basically we've been keeping the peace in our backyard since the 1820s.

Did you criticize Reagan's invasion of Grenada, by the way?

former law student said...

Ann may have linked to the WSJ, but you acting like they're the only ones who have pointed out the obviously illegal actions by the Honduran president is dishonest.

I did check L'Osservatore Romano, but they have yet to cover Honduras's military coup.

John Lynch said...

I'm also especially interested in how leftists (by which I mean the Latin American left) appeal to legality only when they lose.

When they win, laws are merely barriers set up by entrenched interests to oppress the people.

There's a real fine line on when it's OK to use extra-constitutional measures to stop tyranny. And removing the President by force is extra-constitutional.

Still, what were they supposed to do, just watch this guy take over their country? The provision he was trying to overturn was there for a reason. A lot of tyrants got that way because of hand wringing over legality when defense of democracy called for more. The German Social Democrats are the most famous example, but the Menshviks and the Iranian liberals are others. And of course the recent subversion of Venezuela and Bolivia show what happens if no one stops the tyrant.

That doesn't make it OK to replace one tyranny with another, so we'll see what the new government does. This isn't the cold war anymore. I don't think we're going to see death squads and mass murder.

There's a split between people who believe "democracy" is majority rule and those who think it's constitutional order. The disturbing tendency in Latin America for majorities to vote for dictatorship (why not elect some other socialist? Why does it have to be this guy again?) makes a constitution more necessary, not less.

traditionalguy said...

The Big Lie for Marxist killers is that they can be elected once for life to steal everything and end free speech, and end elections and kill off opposition leaders, and still claim that they are legitimate democrats. Yes, Obama believes that too. But what a great smile!

elHombre said...

fls wrote: Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

We often find you groping at straws like most loyal Obots, but this is absurd.

This has nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine. Moreover, the Monroe Doctrine (and the Roosevelt Corrolary) are probably extra-legal measures, like coups.


And what in the world has Grenada got to do with anything? Have you lost your mind?

Jim said...

fls -

"Did you criticize Reagan's invasion of Grenada, by the way?"

Did Reagan say, not to two weeks before the invasion of Grenada, that "we don't want to be seen as meddling?"

I don't have a problem with the US stating its opinions on world affairs or intervening militarily when our national security is at risk: but that was Obama's position 2 weeks ago.

That was Obama's position on Iran, and his excuse why he couldn't stand up for the protesters. So he does a complete aboutface when it comes to Honduras, and you think that people aren't going to notice or call him out on it?

Maybe in your world that can be justified because you object to Leftist thugs being prevented from seizing power illegally and you don't really care if the US stands up for democracy. But there are a lot of people who do, and you're in the process of tying yourself into yet another logic pretzel trying to defend Obama's inconsistent, and hypocritical actions.

Doesn't that get tiring after a while?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's funny to see right-wingers reflexively tar Obama with epithets like communist, no matter what the cause.

It's funny to see leftists defend Obama's meddling in Honduran internal affairs when last week praising his restraint with Iranian internal affairs.

It's funny to see Obama open to taxing health benefits when six months ago he chastised McCain for the same suggestion. Then with lefties, it's all about the Cause isn't it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Again this is another example of the left simply sticking thier fingers in their ears and saying la la la can't hear you.

If Obama wants to be consistent he should have kept his mouth shut and not meddled in Honduran internal affairs. If its good enough for Persians it should be good enough for Hondurans. Fact is, our history in Central America is a lot more sordid than it ever was with Iran so he would do well to just stfu since he can't seem to keep a consistent policy from one week to the next.

T said...

Hah! The Monroe Doctrine! Cited by somebody on the left, regarding the Honduras situation! *coffee spraying out of nose* Warn me next time, sheesh!

Jim said...

Hoosier -

"It's funny to see Obama open to taxing health benefits when six months ago he chastised McCain for the same suggestion."

Obama is practicing something that the Muslims call "taqiyya." [I'm not implying that he's a closet Muslim. I'm just saying they have a word for it.]

Taqiyya is "sanctified hypocrisy." That is, it is actually a holy act to lie about your true intentions if it advances your cause. Leftists like fls and his ilk are also practitioners.

Just as the gays were convinced that he was lying during the general election when he said he was against gay marriage but that he was secretly for it. They felt that the lie was justified because it advanced their cause. [Not that things worked out that way, but they too believed in taqiyya.]

[I'm not trying to single out gays, but it's the most obvious and recent example other than the current instance that comes to mind.]

It's the same case with regard to Iran and Honduras. Obama is obviously engaging in "sanctified hypocrisy" in order to advance a Leftist agenda. fls and Robert Cook are essentially just fighting a rear-flank action: trying to cover for the lies and hypocrisy to help move the ball down the field toward the ultimate goal.

Pastafarian said...

Gosh, I wonder if there's any chance that President Obama will ask that a purely non-binding poll be taken late in his second term, to determine the popularity of the idea of repealing term limits for POTUS? Maybe ACORN can go door-to-door and collect responses.

I bet I know just what the results of that poll will be, 7 years in advance.

And then maybe we'll put a referendum on the ballot, and we'll get 110% voter turnout in every major city, again, thanks to ACORN's get-out-the-vote drive.

At what point would an armed overthrow be justified?

I'm not sure if the Hondurans were looking at Chavez as their cautionary tale when they decided to short-circuit this tyrant-in-the-making, or if they were looking north.

NKVD said...

Leave Cookie alone - he is overflowing with thug love and doesn't want to hear anything but what he wants to hear. He is a hard core leftist and as such, cannot be swayed by law or facts.

Hoosier Daddy said...

FLS said Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Basically we've been keeping the peace in our
backyard since the 1820s.


You mean the doctrine where we would not tolerate European interference in the Americas? I've heard of it but what does that have to do with a purely Honduran internal matter?

Your serve.

former law student said...

It's funny to see leftists defend Obama's meddling in Honduran internal affairs when last week praising his restraint with Iranian internal affairs.

I guess the right's problem with Obama is the sharp contrast with Reagan, whose administration sold arms to Iran, using the proceeds to finance Central American rebels overthrowing their government.

To be more like Reagan, Obama should support the mullahs as well as the Honduran military.

former law student said...

FLS said Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Basically we've been keeping the peace in our
backyard since the 1820s.

You mean the doctrine where we would not tolerate European interference in the Americas? I've heard of it but what does that have to do with a purely Honduran internal matter?

It must have whizzed over hoosier's head:

Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Basically we've been keeping the peace in our
backyard since the 1820s.

John Lynch said...

Our attempts to somehow appease the Left in Latin America by reinstalling would-be tyrants won't work. Anti-American populism is too entrenched and can't succeed without the bad old North Americans as a foil.

We put Aristide back in and how did that work out?

My big problem with the Left down there is that as long as "social justice" is achieved democracy and elections are unnecessary. Cuba's great health care justifies dictatorship. Uh, no, it doesn't.

My grandfather was a bad old cold warrior who went from the Comintern to the CIA after he realized what a fraud communism was. This after founding the Peruvian Socialist Party and the Popular Front in Chile. It's not about democracy, it's about using centuries of injustice to justify dictatorship in the name of the oppressed.

T said...

I believe, and I could be wrong, that to apply the Monroe Doctrine in this case, would mean using Grenada as a precedent (The Monroe Doctrine was bandied about back then). So we should already have Marines and Rangers on the ground rounding up the Venezuelans and Cubans.

It doesn't seem necessary in this case. Their supreme court, atty general, congress, and armed forces are handling it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It must have whizzed over hoosier's head:

Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Basically we've been keeping the peace in our
backyard since the 1820s.


FLS do you even have the mental capacity to hold an honest discussion? Please read up on the Monroe Doctrine and then let the rest of the class know how that applies to an internal Honduran matter.

If Obama wants to be consistent and not meddle in sovereign nation's internal affairs as he went to great lengths to explain a few weeks ago, it would behoove him to keep silent rather than open his mouth and make Biden look smart.

Jim said...

fls -

"I guess the right's problem with Obama is the sharp contrast with Reagan, whose administration sold arms to Iran, using the proceeds to finance Central American rebels overthrowing their government."

Once again with the historical ignorance or deceit. [I can never figure out if you just don't have the first clue or if you do and you're intentionally lying about it. Clarification would be appreciated.]

Reagan was fighting the Cold War, and he had to make a choice between a rock and a hard place: between allowing the Soviet Union another toehold virtually on our borders or supporting a dictatorship. He did what he had to do, and he won. The world is a better place for the fall of the Soviet Union. Or do you disagree?

Unless there's another superpower involved that only you're aware of, there's absolutely no similarity whatsoever to this situation. So your strawman has fallen down again.

[You seem to having real problems sticking to the topic at hand today. Did they have a sale on strawmen at Home Depot and you picked up a couple extra, or were these already just lying around in your garage?]

Dave said...

"Scroll back up to John's post. Pretty self-explanitory.

Where in his post?

Again, just because the president may do something illegal does not mean he can be removed in just any manner. That manner must be consistent with what their laws state.

former law student said...

Reagan was fighting the Cold War, and he had to make a choice between a rock and a hard place: between allowing the Soviet Union another toehold virtually on our borders or supporting a dictatorship

Right-wing takeovers good, left-wing takeovers bad. Got it, thanks!

AlphaLiberal said...

What bullshit. I posted on this last night here:

* The Honduran Congress passed a measure accepting the new military-appointed President after the coup.

* The Honduran Constitution does not give the Honduran Supreme Court the authority to order the military to do anything, much less remove a democratically elected President with force. If the Supreme Court is exceeding their authority, how is that legal? .

* The referendum that they stopped would actually have led to -- another referendum. There were peaceful and legal means (impeachment, say) to handle the dispute.

* It is the depths of stupidity to say that our policies should be dictated by what Chavez does.

* Obama has actually fucked Chavez on this one as he wanted to paint the US as behind the coup.

It's alarming to see the US right wing embrace illegal violent government overthrow. I believe they would do the same here if they could.

Jim said...

fls -

"Right-wing takeovers good, left-wing takeovers bad. Got it, thanks!"

That's not what I said, so don't try to twist my words. You were both off-topic and wrong on top of it. All I did was point it out. Being a sore loser doesn't become you.

Go find a history book and look up "Cold War." Come back when you've read for comprehension.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"* Obama has actually fucked Chavez on this one as he wanted to paint the US as behind the coup."

Except that Obama and Chavez are going to the UN together. That sure sounds like Obama "fucked" Chavez to me.

Really. Are you even paying attention?

AlphaLiberal said...

In other news, Glenn Beck's guest calls for Osama bin Laden to detonate a major weapon the USA. Glenn Beck is fine with that.

"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

Right wing treason continues apace. They support military coups and attacks against the USA.

AlphaLiberal said...

Mr. Obama’s nonconfrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chávez off balance. “Chávez is beginning to understand that he’s dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,” said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy research group. …

Mr. Chávez’s threats of belligerence in Central America led one opposition party here, Acción Democrática, to issue a statement on Monday that was full of irony: “Hugo Chávez has become the George Bush of Latin America.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/americas/01venez.html

Elliott A said...

Perhaps Obama has no coherent agenda, but is making it up as he goes since he is clearly overmatched. The campaign was well orchestrated, but now reality sets in. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. This is why he is so inconsistent and has ever changing positions. Each incident is seen through a unique lens and not in concert with the other coincident problems. He jumps from one to the next trying to get his footing, but never achieves this. The cracks are beginning to show.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim, would you support a coup in the USA under similar circumstances?

The right wing is not a big fan of democracy after all.

AlphaLiberal said...

Flat out Orwellian Doublespeak from Jim:

The people of Hondurus are trying to save their democracy. .

What kind of brain says this? A democratically elected President is removed by the military and you think that's democratic? .

Jim said...

Alpha -

"Jim, would you support a coup in the USA under similar circumstances?"

The president of the United States doesn't have the power to call a referendum in the United States. Period. Obama could get on TV and request one, and the country would have a collective laugh at his expense.

Honduras' constitution isn't the same as ours. But I guess understanding that would require putting more thought into the subject than just reading your morning e-mail from the DNC.

"The right wing is not a big fan of democracy after all."

Really? That's why the "right wing" was shouting from the highest hilltops and putting pressure on Obama to support the protesters in Iran.

I swear sometimes you should actually try reading what you write before you hit the "Publish" button. You're not even coherent.

BTW. I watched the clip. Glenn Beck did not endorse the guy's position no matter how your Leftist Media Matters is trying to spin it. Nice try on changing the subject though. FAIL.

Jim said...

Alpha -

First of all, I wasn't the one who said it.

Second, if you had the first clue about constitutional democracy then you'd understand the statement as written. Go join in fls in the library and read up on the subject.

AlphaLiberal said...

BTW. I watched the clip. Glenn Beck did not endorse the guy's position no matter how your Leftist Media Matters is trying to spin it. Nice try on changing the subject though. FAIL. .

Oh, bullshit! the guy is openly calling for an attack on the US and Beck just nods along.

Conservatives WANT our country to be attacked. Cheney has been laying down a marker for that day.

And, mark my words. If we are attacked again, then the right wing will react the opposite of how liberals reacted on 9/11/2001: they will divide this country and attack the President.

they cheer on military coups against a democratically elected President AND they invite an attack by Osama bin Laden!

Fuckers!

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim:

That's why the "right wing" was shouting from the highest hilltops and putting pressure on Obama to support the protesters in Iran. .

No, it isn't.

You guys want belligerence and bellicosity, no matter if it is counterproductive. You want threats of violence and, even better for you, real violence.

You could give a shit about the people of Iran. Spare me the posing.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"No, it isn't. "

So I guess it was Bernie Sanders whose speech on the Senate floor finally prompted Obama to speak out for the protesters? Maybe it was Barbara Boxer? No? Gosh. I must be thinking of some other reality where it wasn't Leftists who were silent on defending democracy.

What color are the skies in your world?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Jim, would you support a coup in the USA under similar circumstances?

I won't speak for Jim but if the US President decided he was going to hold an illegal referendum to change the constitution that would allow him to be President for Life and was told it was illegal and refused to reinstate officials he canned then yes, I would support whatever intervention was needed to remove him/her as unfit to lead and replaced with the individual in line of succession as provided for in the Constitution.

Considering the US military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the US, such action would also be appropriate under their sworn oaths.

Next ridiculous question.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim:

OK, I'll play along for now. You are the fount of all wisdom.

So explain this:

Where does the Honduran Supreme Court get the LEGAL authority to order the Honduran military to forcibly remove the President?

Jim said...

Alpha -

You're clearly way off your meds today, so I'm going to leave you to your ranting and raving. You are making absolutely no sense, and are showing a clear break with reality.

Call your doctor and ask him to renew the prescription.

AlphaLiberal said...

Hoosier Daddy is pro-coupo in the USA:

I won't speak for Jim but if the US President decided he was going to hold an illegal referendum to change the constitution that would allow him to be President for Life and was told it was illegal and refused to reinstate officials he canned then yes, I would support whatever intervention was needed to remove him/her as unfit to lead and replaced with the individual in line of succession as provided for in the Constitution. .


So, following this pretzel logic he would support an illegal and unConstitutional coup in order to.... wait for .... Protect the Constitution!

I can see it now: "We had to violate the Constitution in order to save it."

Hoosier Daddy said...

If we are attacked again, then the right wing will react the opposite of how liberals reacted on 9/11/2001: they will divide this country and attack the President.

You mean the liberals were united in going after Osama and all the 'what did Bush know and when did he know it', it was all a conspiracy to invade the Middle East, Bush and Cheney blew up the towers, fire doesn't melt steel and all that was just a figment of my imagination?

Actually the better question is what color is the sky in your paralelle universe?

Jim said...

Alpha -

To answer your last post:

"The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica."

The attorney general was enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court which prohibited Zelaya's actions. The attorney general, in accordance with his constitutional duties, enforced the law of the land and ordered Zelaya's arrest.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thorazine. Have a happy day!

AlphaLiberal said...

Underlying the right wing willingness to embrace military coups against democratically elected leaders is this:

Conservatives are a bunch of scardey cats. They tremble so much in fear of Hugo Chavez that they will do the opposite of whatever he does.

Dont' you love playing chess with people like that? Makes for a short game!

Really. I've concluded Althouse shares this fear and insecurity, which explains her hawkishness.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"I can see it now: "We had to violate the Constitution in order to save it.""

I guess you never heard of Abraham Lincoln.

Where is that doctor with the meds anyway?

Hoosier Daddy said...

So, following this pretzel logic he would support an illegal and unConstitutional coup in order to.... wait for .... Protect the Constitution!

I can see it now: "We had to violate the Constitution in order to save it."


You are truly a moron aren't you? I mean seriously you must have to work at it.

AlphaLiberal said...

Hoosier Daddy lies like a mother fucken rug:


You mean the liberals were united in going after Osama and all the 'what did Bush know and when did he know it', it was all a conspiracy to invade the Middle East, Bush and Cheney blew up the towers, fire doesn't melt steel and all that was just a figment of my imagination?
.

No, I don't. I never said that.

I did provide a link to a frequent Glenn Beck guest saying:

: "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

Has any conservative here denounced that yet? Glenn Beck sure didn't!!

AlphaLiberal said...

Hoosier Daddy, you voiced support for a coup. Your words.

Maybe if you're so smart, you can show us all where a coup is provided for in the US Constitution.

You've been owned.

Dave said...

"The attorney general was enforcing the orders of the Supreme Court which prohibited Zelaya's actions. The attorney general, in accordance with his constitutional duties, enforced the law of the land and ordered Zelaya's arrest."

Why not put him on trial?

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim:

Zelaya was not "arrested". He was abducted by force and shipped out of the country.

Again, you fail to show where this authority for the military to abduct a President comes from.

Such abduction is not legal. The military is not, well should not be, the ultimate authority in a civil society. That way lies violence.

Under this logic, we could have abducted George Bush and deported him for numerous violations of US law and treaties.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy lies like a mother fucken rug:

No, I don't. I never said that.


Maybe you didn't personally but your lefties in arms certainly did and thus, by association you did too. Because that's what you do Alpha. One dingbat makes a stupid comment and you attribute it to all conservatives. Liberal Rosie O'Donnell said 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy so I guess you said so too since you're a liberal.So have a taste of your own medicine you piece of shit.

I'm done with you on this forum. You're nothing more than a dishonest pile of garbage. Scroll past me from now on.

Jim said...

Dave -

"Why not put him on trial?"

I'll give you this much: it may have been better to put him on trial. However:

1) the issue at hand is whether his arrest was constitutional or not. The answer is clearly yes, and those who are arguing otherwise are clearly in the wrong from the outset.

2) Given that Zelaya had already had his thugs break into a military base to steal the illegal referendum ballots, they may have made the determination that they could not securely hold him within their borders.

3) Whether they chose exile or trial isn't ultimately our business. The point is that he was legally arrested and removed from power under the terms of their constitution, a civilian (from his own party) was placed in charge of the government, no military member is taking part in the government so calling it a "coup" is a misnomer in the first instance, the scheduled elections are still scheduled, so the process of democracy has continued.

It's not for the US to say who the Honduran people choose for their leader. Our only interest is in making sure that the changeover in power occurred within the Honduran constitution: which it clearly did. Whether they did the right thing following the arrest is up to the Hondurans to ultimately decide.

AlphaLiberal said...

Why wasn't impeachment an option? After all, the referendum question was on whether or not to have another referendum.

Do conservatives prefer things be done nonviolently, or do they prefer the violent approach?

I think the answer depends on how their power agenda is served.

mariner said...

But then why is Barack Obama — our constitutional law professor President — taking the other side — aligned, alarmingly, with Hugo Chavez?


Because.Obama.Is.A.F***ing.Communist.

This isn't hard.

AlphaLiberal said...

Let's remember, also, that American conservatives have a long history of supporting coups against democratically elected leaders.

The bloody dictator Augusto Pinochet leaps to mind. They've long defended that butcher.

Jim said...

Alpha -

Try reading this.

1) Their laws require loss of citizenship for even attempting what Zelaya did.

2) They may not even be a constitutional provision for impeachment, so unless you can cite the provision that allows for it you're arguing for something which doesn't even exist.

[Note: I'm not familiar with the author of this post. I simply did a little Googling and found it. He seems to be attempting some honest analysis of the subject, so I thought it relevant to the discussion at hand.]

You're doing a whole lot of stomping and screaming about something you know nothing about.

Dave said...

Jim -

I'm not as convinced as you are that their methods were legal. Arrest and removal from power are not the same thing. So while it may have been in their power to arrest him, that doesn't mean it is in their power to replace him.

"It's not for the US to say who the Honduran people choose for their leader. Our only interest is in making sure that the changeover in power occurred within the Honduran constitution: which it clearly did. Whether they did the right thing following the arrest is up to the Hondurans to ultimately decide."

I agree that the US should not be choosing the Honduran president. And they haven't. The US has seemingly made the determination that the way the president was removed did not follow the law.

Jim said...

Alpha -

Do you have a clue how unhinged you sound with your constant refrains that conservatives want blood and violence? Those are the ravings of a lunatic, not a person interested in reasoned discourse.

Seek help, seriously.

T said...

Nonviolent would of course be the best option, but I suspect that when the prez had his thugs break into a military base to steal the ballots, a clearly violent act and surely beyond the law, it created a sense of urgency to do something decisive and immediately effective.

Very messy situation. Undoubtedly much of the story has yet to be told.

former law student said...

Because.Obama.Is.A.F***ing.Communist.

We'll find who else is Communist in the next few days. If Pope Benedict turns out to be Communist by the "restore the duly elected President of Honduras" criterion, I wonder if we'll see any backtracking here.

Jim said...

Dave -

It seems to me that we're arguing about technicalities rather than looking at the broad strokes of the situation. The facts are these:

1) Zelaya clearly engaged in illegal conduct.
2) The Supreme Court told him to stop.
3) He did it anyway.
4) Members of his own party told him to stop.
5) He did it anyway.
6) His attorney general told him that he would be arrested if he didn't stop.
7) Zelaya upped the ante by using hired thugs to break into a military base so that he could do it anyway.
8) The attorney general had him arrested.

Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. Bottom line: the guy crying about being unconstitutionally removed from office had absolutely zero use for the constitution while he was in office. Allowing him to use the dodge to avoid responsibility for his clearly illegal acts is craven and cowardly.

You may be able to argue about some of the details, and I may even agree with you on some of them. But it's pretty clear that this guy needed to be gone, that he had no business anywhere near the levers of power, and that he wasn't in any way governing according to his country's constitution.

None of those things are in this country's best interest to support. Obama's knee-jerk reaction to come to this guy's support is a bad reflection on this country, and wrong in every instance.

former law student said...

It seems to me that we're arguing about technicalities rather than looking at the broad strokes of the situation. The facts are these:

The duly elected President of Honduras was ousted by a military coup.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If Pope Benedict turns out to be Communist

Well it would be backtracking for the leftys who were convinced he was still Nazi after his service in the Hitler Jugend at the age of 14.

Jim said...

fls -

The Pope isn't the US president. I'm Catholic, and whether the Pope calls for his return or not is irrelevant.

I don't want to get into theology here, but I would even argue that it's none of the Pope's business as it is purely a secular matter.

Joe said...

Back to Obama's reaction; there is a simpler explanation, but one that is far more disturbing to me. That is, Obama received a very incomplete briefing on the subject and reacted to that.

This is disturbing because it would mean Obama either has a high incompetent staff (a real possibility) or is being given extremely manipulated information (also a real possibility.)

LarsPorsena said...

FLS said:
"We'll find who else is Communist in the next few days. If Pope Benedict turns out to be Communist by the "restore the duly elected President of Honduras" criterion, I wonder if we'll see any backtracking here.'

The left has always pegged Benedict as a crypto-nazi so it's somewhat bizarre to see you us him as some unimpeachable moral authority.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It seems to me that we're arguing about technicalities rather than looking at the broad strokes of the situation.

We're also pointing out the facts of Obama's hypocrisy in meddling in soveriegn nations' internal affairs. Iran = no meddling / Honduras = meddling.

former law student said...

but I would even argue that it's none of the Pope's business as it is purely a secular matter.

The Pope is a rather conservative European head of state. For him to be judged Communist would be absurd.

Dave said...

Jim -

"Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. Bottom line: the guy crying about being unconstitutionally removed from office had absolutely zero use for the constitution while he was in office. Allowing him to use the dodge to avoid responsibility for his clearly illegal acts is craven and cowardly."

I don't see how putting him on trial would be allowing him to dodge responsibility. And I don't view how he is removed from office as irrelevant. If Honduras has a process for removing their executive from power, that process should be followed.

Veeshir said...

I guess I spoke up too soon.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim, I'll give you credit for bringing actual information to the debate. Mayor Bloomberg should be happy New York doesn't have a similar provision.

I'll take a look at that tonight when I'm back surfing. But it still doesn't mean the action was legal, just that they have a weird, if relevant, clause in their constitution.

The issue of authority to order the military remains as does other peaceful remedies.

Add to that, they shut down the press in Honduras in typical strongman coup fashion:

TEGUCIGALPA, June 29 (Reuters) - Honduras has shut down television and radio stations since an army coup over the weekend, in a media blackout than has drawn condemnation from an international press freedom group.

Shortly after the Honduran military seized President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica on Sunday, soldiers stormed a popular radio station and cut off local broadcasts of international television networks CNN en Espanol and Venezuelan-based Telesur, which is sponsored by leftist governments in South America.

A pro-Zelaya channel also was shut down.

The few television and radio stations still operating on Monday played tropical music or aired soap operas and cooking shows.


That's legal, too?

EnigmatiCore said...

"The duly elected President of Honduras was ousted by a military coup."

You need to click your ruby-red slippers together while repeating it over and over and, the hard part, actually believing it in your heart in order for it to come true.

The duly elected President of Honduras acted in violation of the law in an attempted power grab, and the military, acting under the orders of the Supreme Court and with the support of the legislature, the Attorney General, and even the party from which he came, prevented it.

It would be the strangest military coup ever seeing that the military did not keep power and instead immediately turned it over to Congress and to another guy in the same party.

I think the main reason this upsets you so, FLS, is because if it won't work in Honduras, how will you ever get it to work here?

Jim said...

Dave -

"If Honduras has a process for removing their executive from power, that process should be followed."

That's the million-dollar question. I posted the link to a blogger posting about exactly that and it isn't clear that they have an impeachment process at all.

Looking at things from the outside, it seems to me that everyone from the Supreme Court, to members of the opposition, to members of his own party, to his own attorney general did everything they could "by the book." They followed legal process in declaring the referendum unconstitutional and tried to put a stop to it.

The only here who is clearly NOT following the constitution is Zelaya. He was the one who broke the law by even asking to extend his term (see the bloggers post). He was the one who broke the law by hiring thugs to break into a military base.

So, on balance, if the US has to give the benefit of the doubt to one side or the other: it's clearly those who opposed Zelaya.

It would be one thing if Obama objected to the exile and demanded that he be put on trial. But that's not what Obama has said. He hasn't asked for justice for the Honduran people. He's demanding that a guy who clearly has no respect for the Honduran constitution be allowed to manipulate that same process and be forcibly reinstalled as president.

Obama is wrong no matter how you look at it: unless, of course, you think that Leftists should be defended no matter what they've done wrong.

T said...

Very interesting link, you posted, Jim. Thanks!

AlphaLiberal said...

And, I just want to say I'm not a fan of Zelaya. He's a rich timber and cattle baron, for Pete's sake.

But it's in our own interest to see Latin American leave this type of action in the past.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, Jim, modern conservatives such as Bill Kristol and many others have been calling for military action against Iran. Conservatives supported a long line of violent overthrows of democratically elected governments when they didn't like the outcome.

My statements are well-founded in a long history of conservatives leaping for violent responses to problems. (Again, see Augusto Pinochet and support from conservatives. Or conservative support for Saddam Hussein when he was "gassing his own people").

Open your eyes.

Jim said...

Alpha -

I don't know what the greater context of those shutdowns was. Was the "pro-Zelaya channel" advocating violence? Given CNN's admitted complicity in its Baghdad bureau under Saddam, it's reasonable to ask if they were reporting facts or advocating illegal actions?

I don't know, and neither do you. If they were simply reporting facts, or opining that they disagreed with the government without also advocating violence, then I would agree that they should have been allowed to continue broadcasting. But we don't know that they were behaving responsibily and I highly doubt that a Venezuelan channel was doing so given Chavez' reaction to date. Just the fact that a channel got shut down doesn't automatically make it censorship: it's only censorship if they're not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Also, not having personal knowledge of Honduran laws, it may or may not be legal for the government to shut down broadcasters. The US is fairly unique in the world in our "freedom of the press" and the extraordinary freedom given to journalists. Most other countries have at least some laws regarding what is and isn't allowed. We may not like them, but it doesn't mean that what they're doing is per se illegal.

Big Mike said...

As soon as I tried the gedanken experiment of imagining what would have happened if the military announced that it was appointing a "genuine Marxist" to the presidency, I realized that at least 75% of the comments posted on this thread would have gone the other way, most particularly those by Robert Cook, FLS, and my old buddy, Alpha.

So at that point the whole thread became hilarious.

mariner said...

@John Lynch,

There's a real fine line on when it's OK to use extra-constitutional measures to stop tyranny. And removing the President by force is extra-constitutional.


This is an issue Americans should start thinking seriously about.

Our turn is coming, and it won't be fun.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"And, Jim, modern conservatives such as Bill Kristol and many others have been calling for military action against Iran."

I wasn't aware the Kristol had been advocating military action in Iran as a result of their electoral sham and the subsequent violence.

I do know that a great number of people have been advocates of, at the very least, leaving the military option on the table with regard to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Is that what you're talking about?

If that's the case, then:

a) that's a whole different issue, and
b) we're talking about direct threats to national security as opposed to a preference for the type of government in a given country.

As far as supporting coups, etc., it would be nice if we could just snap our fingers and have everyone behave exactly as we'd like them to with nice, neat constitutional democracies who don't threaten their neighbors.

I find that the vast majority of instances where Leftists complain of our supporting coups in one country fail to mention what our alternative was in that particular instance: that in the vast majority of cases, the alternative was far worse for our national security than supporting the coup. For example, Musharaaf in Pakistan. Think about Osama bin Laden on 9/11 with access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and having a nuclear bomb detonate in the middle of New York City. It's not like we loved the guy, but that's what our choice was.

Just once I'd like to see a Leftist admit that not every choice the US has is between spreading joy and engaging in murderous rampages. The real world involves making tough choices. We haven't always been right, I'll be the first one to admit. But unlike Leftists, I'm also not going to go anywhere near saying that we were even mostly wrong.

elHombre said...

It is mind-boggling to watch American leftist ideologues actually argue that actions of the Honduran Supreme Court, Attorney General, Congress and Army are illegal under Honduran law.

This despite the fact that according to the Honduran Constitution the Court is the arbiter of Honduran law, the Congress is the creater of Honduran law and the Attorney General and the Army (under some circumstances) are the enforcers of Honduran law.

Like that of their man-god, Obama, their arrogance in pursuit of the ends of their ideology knows no bounds. In Alpha's case it apparently knows no sanity either.

Big Mike said...

That should have been "Honduran presidency."

Good summary, elHombre.

Paul said...

It's amazing to me how many of you still think this monster has good intentions for this country. He was born and bred into hatred for Western democratic capitalism and particularly its standard bearer, the USA.

He's now in a position to "right" the historical wrongs and injustices perpetrated on the world by America and her allies.

It's only an over the top conspiracy theory if it ain't true. It IS true, and that's why all you homespun conservatives and republicans are constantly flummoxed when he yet again displays behavior that is utterly antithetical to the interests of America and democracy.

Look at his eyes...they are DEAD!! This man is the poster child for the malignant narcissist personality. There is no overestimating the damage he can do the the nation and the world.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Any bets on the possibility of Rep. Serrano's, D-N.Y., H. J. Res. 5 bill passing and then on the Senate also passing it? Before this year, the odds would have been zero.

Once it's passed, El Jefe Obama will move Heaven and Earth to have 26-states pass it (No super-majority 3/4s vote needed here)!

traditionalguy said...

Another test thought: If Sarah Palin was our President today and the Marxist killers were threatening to invade and to install another Supreme Leader like Chavez and Castro for life into Honduras, would she support them in the UN and try to start a Communist revolution there? Maybe Tina Fey would do that, but the real deal Sarah Palin would send in the 82nd the same night and impalin them.

Hoosier Daddy said...

but the real deal Sarah Palin would send in the 82nd the same night and impalin them.

Congratulations I think you just made a new word in the political lexicon.

Impalin - v. to be skwered like a hog by Sarah Palin.

NKVD said...

Is "hog" really a good word choice around here?

rocketeer67 said...

The military arrested Zelaya on the orders of the Attorney General. Turns out that using the military for civil law enforcement is allowed in Honduras, since they have no Posse Comitatus Act.

What has happened in Honduras is not even remotely related to a coup.

Jim said...

NKVD -

"Is "hog" really a good word choice around here?"

It's safe until Titus gets here. Then all bets are off.

rocketeer67 said...

The duly elected President of Honduras was ousted by a military coup.

Being duly elected does not guarantee unlimited and timeless legitimacy. See Chancellor and Fuhrer, Germany, circa 1934.

chefmojo said...

Alpha Liberal said:

Conservatives supported a long line of violent overthrows of democratically elected governments when they didn't like the outcome.

I guess that explains the invasion of Cuba and the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem under Kennedy.

Or LBJ's invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic in 1965.

A good argument can be made that one of the goals of Bill Clinton's illegal intervention in the Balkins was to force regime change in Yugoslavia.

Yep. Conservatives all.

Cedarford said...

former law student said...
It seems to me that we're arguing about technicalities rather than looking at the broad strokes of the situation. The facts are these:

The duly elected President of Honduras was ousted by a military coup.


The duly elected President of the United States, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign in a judicial coup aided and abetted by a "Hate Nixon Media". Two years after achieving the largest electoral landslide in history, 6 years after what would have been a 2nd landslide but for Wallace running as a 3rd Party.

But Nixon clearly broke the law and put himself in an untenable position.

However, look at the difference between Nixon's level of lawbreaking (I imagine FLS defends his supporting Nixon's ouster) and Zelaya's eggregious law-breaking and threat to the Constitution of his Country:

Paraphrasing Jim's excellent summary:

1) Zelaya clearly engaged in illegal conduct.
2) The Supreme Court ordered him to stop.
3) He did it anyway.
4) Members of his own party told him to stop.
5)Congress then ordered him to stop when his own party couldn't stop him.
6) He did it anyway.
7)He fired the military commander when the Commander said he could not carry out an unconstitutioan order in defiance of the Supreme Court.
8) His attorney general told him that he would be arrested if he didn't stop.
7) Zelaya upped the ante by using hired thugs to break into a military base so that he could do it anyway.
8) The attorney general had him arrested.

Imagine if Nixon had reached that level of rampant, rogue lawbreaking trying to seize all national power to serve his Will. Congress, Supreme Court - "pack sand!" Executive law enforcement - pack sand. Military leaders must be loyal to Nixon instead of the Constitution, or be sacked.
Armed thugs loyal to Nixon only raiding military bases.

Nixon, with his flaws, was a far better man than Zelaya. He ultimately obeyed.

Had he reached Zelaya's level of lawlessness, rejecting any challenge of the military observing the Constitution, of SCOTUS, Congress, the AG and law enforcement to hold him in check...impeachment of Nixon would also be impossible. Leaving only a coup to stop him.

Nixon was a better man than that. But had he been as lawless as Zelaya, arrest and coup to re-establish usurped power and authority in other gov't sectors could have happened. Even-In-America...

It is scary that Obama is so clueless on a nation on a path to Chavezism - to destroy Democracy, Constitution, rule of law, power in other state sectors - for it all being with one President For Life.
Scarier than his sorry-ass determination to be silent on Iran's internal constitutional crisis (right call, IMO), but flapping his gums in support of a Leftist Honduran anti-American.

T said...

I'd occasionally read Alpha's comments and think okay, maybe he's got some smarts. Until today. Utter drivel.

Big Mike said...

@T, in Alpha's reality everything he says made sense. When we disagree it's because we're all living in an alternate reality.

T said...

Two T's in here today? That's going to get confusing. Mind if we call you Bruce to keep things clear?

The Other T

Joe said...

Say a US president does something and is impeached and found guilty. He refused to leave the White House. The new president is sworn in. Who does the new president call on to get the now ex-president out of the White House? I assume the Secret Service, but is that correct? Or would it be the Marines?

EnigmatiCore said...

"Yep. Conservatives all."

To FLS? They most certainly are.

Jim said...

Joe -

It would be the Secret Service. Once the new president gets sworn in, the previous president is no different than any other citizen and would be arrested - most likely for trespassing or something of the sort.

The Secret Service is responsible for the current president's safety and has pretty much 100% control over all law enforcement on the White House grounds.

scinfinity said...

Here's another view, from two authors who also appear more knowledgable than commenters here:

So, they got members of the Honduran Supreme Court to write a post for them?

AMAZING.

Because, like it or not, they know the law much better than you do.

What illegal power grab? As Robert Cook suggested, what Bloomberg did to erase term limits in New York was more of an illegal power grab than what the President of Honduras did.

I could mention that nobody mistakes Nurse Bloomberg for a conservative...

Does a difference over interpretation of the law regarding a non-binding public opinion poll that would not, no matter the results, have extended Zelaya's term warrant a military coup of a President whose term is months away from its end?

Amazing, liberals called Bush a violator of the Constitution for markedly less than what Zelaya did.

I guess the right's problem with Obama is the sharp contrast with Reagan, whose administration sold arms to Iran, using the proceeds to finance Central American rebels overthrowing their government.

Almost as bad as FDR arming Stalin, huh? Man, that certainly turned out well...

...I mean, since your side seems to think he was brilliant and all...

Right wing treason continues apace. They support military coups and attacks against the USA.

Wasn't Scheuer a liberal icon when he criticized Bush?

AlphaLiberal said...

The find of articles 239 and 42 in the Honduran Constitution were, indeed, intriguing. My Spanish is only passable so I consulted a much better Spanish speaker.

It's a weird one. Plus, translation at Poliblog left out some related language.

I'm still trying to find if there is anything like a Bill of Rights. Not finding freedom of the press, for example. Haven't found where succession is addressed. But I digress.

It may not be relevant at all. Zelaya's non-binding referendum asked about a vote on holding, basically, a Constitutional Congress (National Constituent Assembly). It was not a referendum that explicitly extended his term in office.

The vote the referendum would decide on holding would occur on November 29, 2009, same as Presidential elections (where Zelaya would not be running).

Zelaya would be out of office in January, 2010 regardless of the results of the referendum and that vote. How does he extend his stay in office if he is ... out of office before the Assembly is convened? That dog don't hunt.

Zelaya has now said he will drop the referendum when he returns to the country and to the office he was elected to.

All in all, I smell a corrupt oligarchic power structure that threw out a troublemaker, who was supposed to be loyal to his class.

AlphaLiberal said...

Wasn't Scheuer a liberal icon when he criticized Bush? .

No. He was a guy who criticized Bush. No-one nominated him for office or made him chair of the liberal club.

Now, he's out of the CIA and a free citizen and frequent Fox News guest. He's not good at this public speaking, though, and said out loud what so many conservatives seem to be longing for - for Obama to have a terrorist attack on his watch.

Of course, they don't count domestic right wing terror as terror.

elHombre said...

Evidently, Obama intends to sell out pro-USA Honduras without giving the new government a hearing.

His reasons appear to be:

A. This will give him an opportunity to side with EU pansies whose admiration he so desperately seeks.

B. This will give him an opportunity to side with South and Central American tin pots, like Castro and Chavez, whose left wing "successes" he so desperately wishes to emulate.

C. This will give him an opportunity to show he is "not Bush," a goal for which he so desperately strives, despite the fact that "not Bush" isn't really an identity.

I'll say it again, the new hallmark of American policy is political expedience. Justice and courage be damned.

AlphaLiberal said...

Also on Honduras:
* They also read a letter of resignation from Zelaya. Does anyone believe he wrote that? Fishy.

* Much of the story has been constructed after the fact.

* There are many reports (incl Fox) that Zelaya's advisers were also arrested, harassed, some beaten. One, another Presidential candidate from a different party, reported (incl Fox) killed but now is reported in hiding. Typical coup, not typical law enforcement.

* Jim, I mention press being suppressed because it casts doubt on the line that this was a simple law enforcement action by the AG and not a coup.

* The Honduran Constitution has been changed a LOT but this is the first time I've heard someone has been accused of treason over it. ("1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 y 2005.")

* Yes, I agree Dem Presidents also supported dictators. It was wrong and often done for the crudest motives. But GOPs went further and embraced Pinochet and his torture regime, as others (Guatemala has had a tragic story).

* Chavez came out saying US was behind it. Obama has made Chavez look less credible.

* I'm no Honduras expert but I've been there and in CA and know more than avg bear.

* It is a bit of a clusterfuck.

AlphaLiberal said...

elHombre, that's a pretty weird and unfounded accusation.

Must go hike a trail.

Jim said...

Alpha -

"No. He was a guy who criticized Bush. No-one nominated him for office or made him chair of the liberal club. "

But yet Leftists keep claiming that Rush Limbaugh is the "Leader of the Republican Party" even though he has never held office or made him chair of the conservative club.

You want to name the leaders of the other guys' party over their objections according to your political convenience, then you don't get to disclaim a "Leader" when one is named for you.

Either both are right, or both are wrong. [I can already see the excuses coming, so don't bother: they're self-justifying and irrelevant. Either you get to decide who the other party's leader is or you don't. Period.]

Jim said...

Alpha -

It was illegal to even propose under penalty of the forfeiture of his citizenship. He did it anyway.

He defecated all over the constitution and hired thugs to invade a military base. Trying to pretend that he was some kind of do-gooder only makes you look dishonest.

They have a constitutional process which he violated. Repeatedly. The only option left was removal from power.

You're grasping at straws here, Alpha. And you're holding the short one.

elHombre said...

AL wrote: "elHombre, that's a pretty weird and unfounded accusation."

Given the really "weird and unfounded" accusations you've made about conservatives on this thread, your comment is surprising. But I'll bite. Which parts of my accusation do you contest?

Honduras is pro-USA and the interim gov't has been denied the opportunity to present its case to the US, UN and EU. Obama could have adopted the "cautious" attitude he did with Iran.

A. Obama campaigned on a platform of restoring our "image" with the Euros and has unabashedly pursued that goal.

B. Obama is a left-winger engaged in class warfare who has effectively nationalized the GM and Chrysler and some financial institutions and who seeks national healthcare. His supporters are already looking for repeal of the term limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment.

C. He is undeniably committed to occuring as "not Bush."

What's the problem?

elHombre said...

@AL:

Also, in light of your new respect for the Honduran Constitution, try this on:

Honduran Constitution of 1982, Article 272

The mission of the armed forces is to "defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain peace, public order and the integrity of the Constitution, the principle of free elections and regular presidential succession."

Funny, I couldn't find a provision authorizing Chavez, Obama, Castro, et al., to instruct the Honduran Army on how to legally accomplish this.

Uppity Hondurans, presuming sovereignty!

mccullough said...

Maybe that meddling Obama will sell weapons to Iran to fund Zelaya's contras to get in power again.

It'll be the 80's all over again, except without Michael Jackson. Or Karl Malden.

former law student said...

I think the main reason this upsets you so, FLS, is because if it won't work in Honduras, how will you ever get it to work here?

You righties seem a little too smitten with the idea of changing Presidents via the military coup. Who did you root for when you watched Seven Days in May ?

AlphaLiberal said...

Jim: It was illegal to even propose under penalty of the forfeiture of his citizenship. He did it anyway. ..

I addressed this above. You are alleging that he proposed a referendum to further his power. You have offered zero proof of that.

I showed how the scenario you propose, that he was trying to stay in power, is not possible under the proposed referendum and vote.

The election to choose his successor is this November 29, 2009. So, if he can't run for re-election and wouldn't be allowed on the ballot. So, how does he prolong his stay in office with the referendum for a constituent assembly?

You are weaving and ducking on that one, Jim.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 217   Newer› Newest»