Zelaya Back in Honduras!

[Orlkjestad]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/21/world/international-honduras-zelaya.html?_r=1&ref=world

He's back! Praise the Lord!

[Aelosia]

I saw that a whole ago. Yet, noone seems to have confirmation yet. So far, it is Zelaya's words..

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hearing this on the BBC an hour ago, I am really hopeful that a solution can be found to the Honduras crisis. In my opinion the de facto leaders should stand down and say "right, we did make a mistake and we're sorry", and then invite Zelaya to return to leadership. Zelaya, who informally asked his citizens to decide on the constitution's future is in fact a democratic move and should be supported. The de facto leaders, I believe, were more focused on military power rather than harmony, freedom, and importantly, peace.

[Aelosia]

Oh, confirmed. And the Micheletti's goverment have issued a curfew until tomorrow. Extremely interesting, let's see how the situation develops...

[Gift-of-god]

Nice to see Micheletti with a little egg on his face after getting Zelaya's whereabouts wrong, and for having Brazil ignore his demands for Zelaya.

This suggests that some people in the police and the military are supporting Zelaya, as it would have been very difficult for Zelaya to get to Tegucigalpa without encountering any patrols.

Micheletti is no longer in control of the situation, apparently.

[Ordo Mallus]

uhhh if im correct didn't this guy break the law in order to stay president? and that is why there was a coup?

[Gift-of-god]

uhhh if im correct didn't this guy break the law in order to stay president? and that is why there was a coup?

No. You are not correct. While he was accused of breaking the law by the junta that instigated the coup, he was never charged with a crime; nor were his actions illegal, as far as I can tell.

[Orlkjestad]

Bump.

[Xsyne]

uhhh if im correct didn't this guy break the law in order to stay president? and that is why there was a coup?

No. You are not correct. While he was accused of breaking the law by the junta that instigated the coup, he was never charged with a crime; nor were his actions illegal, as far as I can tell.

Depending on how you read it, one could argue that his actions were unconstitutional, but that's not the same as illegal. It's also probably a reading that would not hold, for reasons I should explain but I'm having trouble putting into words. Let's just say that it'd result in something almost as mind-breaking as "This sentence is false".

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

[Sionis Prioratus]

Proud to be Brazilian! (Not that I need any special motive )

[Tubbsalot]

The whole situation is dodgy and I'm not sure where I stand, personally, but that OP makes me wish I was against Zelaya.

[Risottia]

Oh, confirmed. And the Micheletti's goverment have issued a curfew until tomorrow. Extremely interesting, let's see how the situation develops...

Last thing I heard, Zelaya is in the Brazilian embassy and the junta has ordered the police to surround the building and to cut off water pipes and power lines: following that, the Brazilian government has issued a protest to Micheletti, saying that those are attacks against the embassy, and that further attempts shall not be tolerated.

[Greed and Death]

A dumb move by Zelaya.
He is likely going to wind up dead. He should have waited for the OAS and EU to make a deal.
No wonder the negotiators from the OAS told him to stop being a dumb ass.

[The_pantless_hero]

uhhh if im correct didn't this guy break the law in order to stay president? and that is why there was a coup?

No. You are not correct. While he was accused of breaking the law by the junta that instigated the coup, he was never charged with a crime; nor were his actions illegal, as far as I can tell.

As far as you or any of the rest of holier-than-thou psychics the world over who know Honduran law better than the Honduran judiciary and legislature can tell. I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

What I find ironic is that if he had gotten the Constitution changed and elected for a third term, all the rightwing decrying the Honduran "military coup" would be decrying the illegal takeover of another South American country by the ebil socialists.

[DrunkenDove]

As far as you or any of the rest of holier-than-thou psychics the world over who know Honduran law better than the Honduran judiciary and legislature can tell. I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

Of course, it's never been necessary to send in the Military to remove a impeached American president from power, has it?

[The_pantless_hero]

As far as you or any of the rest of holier-than-thou psychics the world over who know Honduran law better than the Honduran judiciary and legislature can tell. I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

Of course, it's never been necessary to send in the Military to remove a impeached American president from power, has it?

If he wouldn't leave, I'm sure they would.

[DrunkenDove]

As far as you or any of the rest of holier-than-thou psychics the world over who know Honduran law better than the Honduran judiciary and legislature can tell. I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

Of course, it's never been necessary to send in the Military to remove a impeached American president from power, has it?

If he wouldn't leave, I'm sure they would.

Not really. If he refused to leave, the White House security would toss him out for trespassing. There is absolutely no reason for the military to get involved when a president is impeached. It's an administrative action, not a military one. If they do, then it's a coup.

[The_pantless_hero]

Not really. If he refused to leave, the White House security would toss him out for trespassing. There is absolutely no reason for the military to get involved when a president is impeached. It's an administrative action, not a military one. If they do, then it's a coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup

Really.

[Free Soviets]

I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

that's because it both didn't work and it went through normal channels.

in any case, the actually unconstitutional actions in the whole honduran mess are those of the military and the coup government. for example, exiling anyone is explicitly forbidden by article 102 and article 3 says any government that comes to power through the use of arms is illegitimate. on the other hand, the claims against zelaya are quite literally nonsensical.

edit: though you can kinda see where micheletti is coming from - when he tried to make congress into a constitutional convention in 1985, he wanted to change it so that the prez could stay in longer. apparently projection isn't limited to USian wingers in this hemisphere.

[The_pantless_hero]

I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

in any case, the actually unconstitutional actions in the whole honduran mess are those of the military and the coup government. for example, exiling anyone is explicitly forbidden by article 102 and article 3 says any government that comes to power through the use of arms is illegitimate. on the other hand, the claims against zelaya are quite literally nonsensical.

I would like everyone please note that the act was unconstitutional (ie, the Honduran constitution) according to everyone in the world except the Honduran judiciary and legislature.
I find that a hard pill to swallow.

[Gift-of-god]

uhhh if im correct didn't this guy break the law in order to stay president? and that is why there was a coup?

No. You are not correct. While he was accused of breaking the law by the junta that instigated the coup, he was never charged with a crime; nor were his actions illegal, as far as I can tell.

As far as you or any of the rest of holier-than-thou psychics the world over who know Honduran law better than the Honduran judiciary and legislature can tell. I don't recall the world calling it a coup when they tried to impeach Clinton for frivolous shit.

What I find ironic is that if he had gotten the Constitution changed and elected for a third term, all the rightwing decrying the Honduran "military coup" would be decrying the illegal takeover of another South American country by the ebil socialists.

Please explain how he was attempting to change the constitution to allow for a third term. The referndum he proposed said absolutely nothing about a third term, so I'm forced to wonder what your reasoning is.

[The_pantless_hero]

Please explain how he was attempting to change the constitution to allow for a third term. The referndum he proposed said absolutely nothing about a third term, so I'm forced to wonder what your reasoning is.

The referendum including an attempt to invoke a constitutional assembly, ie rewrite the constitution. The opposition argued (highly plausibly) that this was to remove the unchangeable restrictions in the constitution outlining term limits. Attempting to do that is unconstitutional.

[Gift-of-god]

Please explain how he was attempting to change the constitution to allow for a third term. The referndum he proposed said absolutely nothing about a third term, so I'm forced to wonder what your reasoning is.

The referendum including an attempt to invoke a constitutional assembly, ie rewrite the constitution. The opposition argued (highly plausibly) that this was to remove the unchangeable restrictions in the constitution outlining term limits. Attempting to do that is unconstitutional.

Okay. So what you're saying is that he didn't actually try to change the constitution?

And that the only connection this has with a third term is that it may have been possible if this assembly decided to change it? Did anyone ever show that Zelaya had any control over that? Could it have changed anything before his term was up?

You see how the facts are vastly different from the claim that he tried to change the constitution to get a third term.

[Farnhamia]

Please explain how he was attempting to change the constitution to allow for a third term. The referndum he proposed said absolutely nothing about a third term, so I'm forced to wonder what your reasoning is.

The referendum including an attempt to invoke a constitutional assembly, ie rewrite the constitution. The opposition argued (highly plausibly) that this was to remove the unchangeable restrictions in the constitution outlining term limits. Attempting to do that is unconstitutional.

Okay. So what you're saying is that he didn't actually try to change the constitution?

And that the only connection this has with a third term is that it may have been possible if this assembly decided to change it? Did anyone ever show that Zelaya had any control over that? Could it have changed anything before his term was up?

You see how the facts are vastly different from the claim that he tried to change the constitution to get a third term.

All of which is fine, except that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya's actions in pushing the referendum were uconsitutional. Also, he ordered the Army to organize and run the voting, which the Army command refused to do, so he fired the Army commander, which the Supreme Court also declared illegal. According to this NY Times article:

The army had resisted participating in a nonbinding referendum on constitutional changes that Mr. Zelaya continued to push after both Congress and the courts had labeled the president’s move unconstitutional. Army lawyers were convinced that Mr. Zelaya was moving to lift a provision limiting presidents to a single term in office, Colonel Bayardo said.

When the army refused an order to help organize the referendum, the president fired the commander of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. He was reinstated by the Supreme Court, which found his removal illegal.

The detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of Tegucigalpa, the capital. It accused him of treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.

Now, Zelaya had a point in saying that they should have hauled him into court rather than hauling him out of the country, but from what I can tell, the Army, the Congress and the Supreme Court all acted properly, within the law.