Military coup in Honduras

[Free Soviets]

Total land. This is not an agriculture based country, but an oil based country. Most of the country still is managed by the state, as most of the territory is either a National Park, a forestal reserve, or an ecology preserved area. Sum to that the oil fields, and you have it. Arable land? Well, with the radical decrease in agriculture during the last 20 years, I don't think it matters that much.

Again, in 1948 most of the arable land was given to the "landless" as you call them. There are a few "big land owners", but there are not that many, they are subjected to extreme goverment vigilance, and each of them doesn't hold that much territory as you think. Most of them are just a minority that keeps producing beef meat and milk, business that in this country, (given the conditions and the climate), needs a lot of land to be productive.

two things. first, it's been my understanding that land reform had largely been more promised than delivered and that those lands which were not already owned by the state that got grabbed were associated more with being on the wrong side of the ruling elites than any coherent policy of redistribution.

and second, the oil thing wound up diversifying the interests of the elite, but that just meant the limited democracy of the period before chavez turned into a competition between two factions of the elite competing for control of the oil, the benefits of which they distributed amongst themselves rather than among the people more broadly (again, they talked a fairly good game about doing otherwise, but it resulted more in a two tier system of development). i mean, despite significant economic growth driven by oil, the gdp per capita was somehow utterly incapable of growing on par with other latin american countries. and then there is the persistently high level of economic inequality over its entire history...

basically, it all looks to me like a system where the feudal-ish system of the past got integrated into a modern economy; some places more than others. and its wound up drastically skewing development and wealth distribution for, effectively, ever.

[Free Soviets]

Sending the military in to exile him makes it look like a coup, even if that's not what it really was.

i find it odd that we're having this discussion at all. the entire international community is willing to call a coup a coup. hell, the organization of american states is threatening to kick honduras out if they don't put back the legitimate government by tomorrow.

[Aelosia]

Total land. This is not an agriculture based country, but an oil based country. Most of the country still is managed by the state, as most of the territory is either a National Park, a forestal reserve, or an ecology preserved area. Sum to that the oil fields, and you have it. Arable land? Well, with the radical decrease in agriculture during the last 20 years, I don't think it matters that much.

Again, in 1948 most of the arable land was given to the "landless" as you call them. There are a few "big land owners", but there are not that many, they are subjected to extreme goverment vigilance, and each of them doesn't hold that much territory as you think. Most of them are just a minority that keeps producing beef meat and milk, business that in this country, (given the conditions and the climate), needs a lot of land to be productive.

two things. first, it's been my understanding that land reform had largely been more promised than delivered and that those lands which were not already owned by the state that got grabbed were associated more with being on the wrong side of the ruling elites than any coherent policy of redistribution.

and second, the oil thing wound up diversifying the interests of the elite, but that just meant the limited democracy of the period before chavez turned into a competition between two factions of the elite competing for control of the oil, the benefits of which they distributed amongst themselves rather than among the people more broadly (again, they talked a fairly good game about doing otherwise, but it resulted more in a two tier system of development). i mean, despite significant economic growth driven by oil, the gdp per capita was somehow utterly incapable of growing on par with other latin american countries. and then there is the persistently high level of economic inequality over its entire history...

basically, it all looks to me like a system where the feudal-ish system of the past got integrated into a modern economy; some places more than others. and its wound up drastically skewing development and wealth distribution for, effectively, ever.

One thing. Your understanding is, while not absolutely wrong, quite misdirected.

Just to cover a tiny part of your ideas, oil industry was basically nationalized in 1973, fully, and has been state owned from then on, (although concessions were made, by the state, with significant profits, during the times when the oil prices were quite, quite low). No "elites" were involved in the creation of the venezuelan national oil industry.

While there have been corruption in higher spheres, and irresponsible private enterprises, to put the blame on Venezuela lack of full development in the heritage of a feudal-ish system is completely misdirected. If you want to look at a feudal-ish heritage for a change, try to look at Brazil.

[Free Soviets]

One thing. Your understanding is, while not absolutely wrong, quite misdirected.

fair enough

---

ooh, in honduran news, guess which totally-not-a-coup-at-all leaders just decreed that a whole bunch of constitutional provisions are now suspended!
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -liberties

Article 69: "A persons liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through process of law."

Article 71: "No person can be arrested nor kept incommunicado for more than 24 hours without being placed before a competent authority to be judged. Judicial detention during an investigation must not exceed six consecutive days from the moment that the same is ordered."

Article 78: "Freedoms of association and meeting are always guaranteed when they are not contrary to public order and good customs.

Article 79: "All persons have the right to meet with others, peacefully and without weapons, in public demonstration or transitory assembly, in relation to their common interests of any type, without necessity of notice or special permission."

Article 81: "All persons have the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in national territory. No one can be obligated to change home or residence except in special cases and with those requirements that the Law establishes."

[Aelosia]

One thing. Your understanding is, while not absolutely wrong, quite misdirected.

fair enough

---

ooh, in honduran news, guess which totally-not-a-coup-at-all leaders just decreed that a whole bunch of constitutional provisions are now suspended!
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -liberties

Article 69: "A persons liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through process of law."

Article 71: "No person can be arrested nor kept incommunicado for more than 24 hours without being placed before a competent authority to be judged. Judicial detention during an investigation must not exceed six consecutive days from the moment that the same is ordered."

Article 78: "Freedoms of association and meeting are always guaranteed when they are not contrary to public order and good customs.

Article 79: "All persons have the right to meet with others, peacefully and without weapons, in public demonstration or transitory assembly, in relation to their common interests of any type, without necessity of notice or special permission."

Article 81: "All persons have the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in national territory. No one can be obligated to change home or residence except in special cases and with those requirements that the Law establishes."

"Suspensión de garantías". "Constitutional warranties suspended". Typical after a coup. In LAtin America, at least. Those warranties are usually suspended when the country is believed in a state of siege or in national emergencies.

I wasn't expecting better. To suspend exactly those rights in the constitution is a common step in the v 1.3 of the Manual on How to Stage a Coup in Latin America.

[Dempublicents1]

From what I can find on google searches (+ being an ignorant American without a working knowledge of another language, so that I have to rely on translations), it is specifically a crime to try to get the law changed such that the term limits are abolished.

My problem with this whole situation is that they went about it all wrong. If Zelaya is a criminal, and from what I've seen, I'm willing to believe that he is (by Honduran law, anyways), they should have arrested him and formally prosecuted/impeached him. Sending the military in to exile him makes it look like a coup, even if that's not what it really was.

From what I can see, even if the referendum had been carried out, and favoured Zelaya 100% - it would not have done anything illegal, because it isn't illegal to ask the Honduran people their opinion, even on changing term limits... it's only illegal to DO it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that it is the supreme court that has overstepped in this, and been backed (or led?) by the always-ready-for-a-coup Honduran military.

I keep finding sites that say things like this:

"Article 42 forbids inciting, encouraging or supporting the re-election of a president, which Zelaya was unambiguously doing. "

If that's true, he was doing something illegal.

As, perhaps, he should - since the head of the military was supporting an illegal action.

Actually, it would appear that he was refusing to engage in an illegal action.

[quote=free soviets]i find it odd that we're having this discussion at all. the entire international community is willing to call a coup a coup. hell, the organization of american states is threatening to kick honduras out if they don't put back the legitimate government by tomorrow.[/quote]

A coup usually involves the military taking over and installing a dictator. In this case, the rest of the government asked that the old president be ousted and installed a new president. If they had held a formal prosecution or impeachment, no one would be able to legitimately call it a coup. But because they had the military exile him instead, it suddenly looks like a coup, even if the military itself is not in control.

ooh, in honduran news, guess which totally-not-a-coup-at-all leaders just decreed that a whole bunch of constitutional provisions are now suspended!
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -liberties

Now, that's screwed up.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

One thing. Your understanding is, while not absolutely wrong, quite misdirected.

fair enough

---

ooh, in honduran news, guess which totally-not-a-coup-at-all leaders just decreed that a whole bunch of constitutional provisions are now suspended!
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -liberties

Article 69: "A persons liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through process of law."

Article 71: "No person can be arrested nor kept incommunicado for more than 24 hours without being placed before a competent authority to be judged. Judicial detention during an investigation must not exceed six consecutive days from the moment that the same is ordered."

Article 78: "Freedoms of association and meeting are always guaranteed when they are not contrary to public order and good customs.

Article 79: "All persons have the right to meet with others, peacefully and without weapons, in public demonstration or transitory assembly, in relation to their common interests of any type, without necessity of notice or special permission."

Article 81: "All persons have the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in national territory. No one can be obligated to change home or residence except in special cases and with those requirements that the Law establishes."

"Suspensión de garantías". "Constitutional warranties suspended". Typical after a coup. In LAtin America, at least. Those warranties are usually suspended when the country is believed in a state of siege or in national emergencies.

I wasn't expecting better. To suspend exactly those rights in the constitution is a common step in the v 1.3 of the Manual on How to Stage a Coup in Latin America.

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

[Aelosia]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

I would love to have an answer, but that question is also killing me. That is what I call in this case "el gato encerrado", (translate for me please!). There is something fishy around that question and I cannot understand that.

I SUPPOSE, (then again, I'm not in Honduras as to know for sure), they didn't have the order of detention by the Supreme Court before they kicked him out, but that would be judging the military in quite a kind light that I don't think they deserve.

Actually, yes, my main guess is that something strange happened because if everything was like MIcheletti, (president of the Cnogress and current appointed provisional president of Honduras), said it was, Zelaya should had gone to jail, not to exile.

[Dempublicents1]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

One of the interviews I heard on POTUS said that the military claims to have given Zelaya a choice - either renounce his presidency and live in exile, or face prosecution. They claim it was him who chose to get on the airplane.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it gives them an out on this question, I suppose.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

I would love to have an answer, but that question is also killing me. That is what I call in this case "el gato encerrado", (translate for me please!). There is something fishy around that question and I cannot understand that.

I SUPPOSE, (then again, I'm not in Honduras as to know for sure), they didn't have the order of detention by the Supreme Court before they kicked him out, but that would be judging the military in quite a kind light that I don't think they deserve.

Actually, yes, my main guess is that something strange happened because if everything was like MIcheletti, (president of the Cnogress and current appointed provisional president of Honduras), said it was, Zelaya should had gone to jail, not to exile.

I don't think there's an expression in English equivalent enough to convey what you mean. But yes, it's rather fishy. Something must've happened. Exile and not jail. But now he's coming back so jail is ok? I don't get it.

[Bears Armed]

Question One: If changing the re-election clause of the constitution is illgeal "by any means" then does that include changing it by replacing the whole constitution?
Apparently the Supreme Court of Honduras thinks so... and they know more about their country's constitution than I do.

Question Two: if that change would be illegal, then did the President simply fail to recognise this at first -- and then insist on going ahead with the referendum, anyway, out of sheer stubbornness -- or did he actually hope to use the referendum's results as "justification" for scrapping the constitution illegally by some sort of "popular decree"?

Question Three: Was the military used to depose him because he had the leadership of whatever civilian law-enforcement body really "should" have done that job in his pocket?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

One of the interviews I heard on POTUS said that the military claims to have given Zelaya a choice - either renounce his presidency and live in exile, or face prosecution. They claim it was him who chose to get on the airplane.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it gives them an out on this question, I suppose.

That's the thing. Now he's going back to Honduras and the miltary says that he will be imprisoned. It's all a huge jumble.

[Aelosia]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

One of the interviews I heard on POTUS said that the military claims to have given Zelaya a choice - either renounce his presidency and live in exile, or face prosecution. They claim it was him who chose to get on the airplane.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it gives them an out on this question, I suppose.

All always went for the airplane...Of course, it is fairly easier to return from exile in comparison to breaking out of jail.

Wow, this Honduras thing looks like an scenario of Trópico. It looks more and more as the typical Golpe de Estado, (coup d'etat). Constitutional rights suspended, (the typical ones), "jail or exile" options for the president...

[Aelosia]

Question One: If changing the re-election clause of the constitution is illgeal "by any means" then does that include changing it by replacing the whole constitution?
Apparently the Supreme Court of Honduras thinks so... and they know more about their country's constitution than I do.

That is exactly the way I think about this issue.

Question Two: if that change would be illegal, then did the President simply fail to recognise this at first -- and then insist on going ahead with the referendum, anyway, out of sheer stubbornness -- or did he actually hope to use the referendum's results as "justification" for scrapping the constitution illegally by some sort of "popular decree"?

Only Zelaya can answer you that question. And guess what, 10 bucks says he is never going to answer it even if someone insist on asking.

Question Three: Was the military used to depose him because he had the leadership of whatever civilian law-enforcement body really "should" have done that job in his pocket?

No, no civilian enforcement agency tried to detain him. And that's my issue with this situation. If he was legally detained by an order of the Supreme Court, then let the police do its job, do not send the military with tanks and guns blazing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

One of the interviews I heard on POTUS said that the military claims to have given Zelaya a choice - either renounce his presidency and live in exile, or face prosecution. They claim it was him who chose to get on the airplane.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it gives them an out on this question, I suppose.

All always went for the airplane...Of course, it is fairly easier to return from exile in comparison to breaking out of jail.

Wow, this Honduras thing looks like an scenario of Trópico. It looks more and more as the typical Golpe de Estado, (coup d'etat). Constitutional rights suspended, (the typical ones), "jail or exile" options for the president...

The guy that lost the elections was appointed "interino" right? Do you see him as a military puppet?

[Dempublicents1]

I have one question. Now that Zelaya is scheduled to go back to Honduras, why is the military threatening, now, to inprison him? They couldn't do that before? And, if they could, why didn't they in the first place and exiled him into Costa Rica?

One of the interviews I heard on POTUS said that the military claims to have given Zelaya a choice - either renounce his presidency and live in exile, or face prosecution. They claim it was him who chose to get on the airplane.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it gives them an out on this question, I suppose.

That's the thing. Now he's going back to Honduras and the miltary says that he will be imprisoned. It's all a huge jumble.

If the military is telling the truth about giving him the choice, this makes sense. It was either exile or prosecution, and now he's coming back, so they would then arrest him. If they're lying....who knows why the exiled him? In most coups, they just would have killed him.

[Aelosia]

The guy that lost the elections was appointed "interino" right? Do you see him as a military puppet?

Yes, "interino". I am not sure at all if he is a military puppet. And nononononono, he didn't lose any elections.

In favor of the military puppet theory: He was apppointed by the military. He was closely followed and watched by them, and seems to be the first and foremost faction supporting him. His ceremony, being surrounded by armed officers, wasn't exactly giving the right message.

Against of the military puppet theory: He is the president of Zelaya's political party, (yeah, I know, WTF?), and he was the president of the Congress. As far as I know, he is supposed to take power if the president "abandons" his seat by any reason. The president of the congress is like a vice president in Honduras, (and in many, many other countries)

[DrunkenDove]

The idea of a constitution that makes it illegal to change certain parts of itself worries me immensely. But that's talk for another topic methinks.

Does anyone know who ordered the military to go in? That seems to be the crux of the matter.

[Aelosia]

The idea of a constitution that makes it illegal to change certain parts of itself worries me immensely. But that's talk for another topic methinks.

Does anyone know who ordered the military to go in? That seems to be the crux of the matter.

So far, noone. And that's the point of why no matter what it is an illegal coup.

[Gift-of-god]

Question One: If changing the re-election clause of the constitution is illgeal "by any means" then does that include changing it by replacing the whole constitution?
Apparently the Supreme Court of Honduras thinks so... and they know more about their country's constitution than I do.

....

However, Zelaya did not propose that either. He proposed a referendum wherein people could decide if they wanted to vote on a constitutional assembly. This constitutional assembly may have addressed the issues that are supposedly off limits, or it may have not. It may have suggested changing the entire constitution, or it may have not. But seeing as how Zelaya, at worst, tried to form a group that might have done something illegal, it seems odd that he could be charged with a crime.

-----------------

They sent him into exile because they felt it was the best of the possible options. They couldn't kill him, because that would make him a martyr. This would aggravate the situation and eventually lead to uprisings and subsequent oppression. Typical military dictatorship in Latin America, except isolated from the rest of Latin America and their left-leaning attempts at a more accountable democracy. This would be a bad scenario for the new regime. So, that leaves imprisonment, exile, or being barred from public office. The last option is pointless, as his term was about over anyways and they could have easily stopped his attempt to change the constitution if they have the organisational capabilities to pull this coup off. Imprisonment would require a trial and a public spectacle, which would create a place to question the new regime's legitimacy. Exile, on the other hand, is quick as we have seen.

[Free Soviets]

i find it odd that we're having this discussion at all. the entire international community is willing to call a coup a coup. hell, the organization of american states is threatening to kick honduras out if they don't put back the legitimate government by tomorrow.

A coup usually involves the military taking over and installing a dictator. In this case, the rest of the government asked that the old president be ousted and installed a new president. If they had held a formal prosecution or impeachment, no one would be able to legitimately call it a coup. But because they had the military exile him instead, it suddenly looks like a coup, even if the military itself is not in control.

continuing military control is not required for something to be a coup. if some part of the government deposes another part of it merely by taking control of one of the various levers of power in the state and uses that to force the other guys out, then you've got yourself a coup. the military is just the easiest lever to use, what with all the guns and tanks. but it doesn't have to originate from the military or elevate it to power afterwards, it just has to hijack the chain of command.

ooh, in honduran news, guess which totally-not-a-coup-at-all leaders just decreed that a whole bunch of constitutional provisions are now suspended!

Now, that's screwed up.

but totally par for the course. never believe anyone who militarily removes an elected official from power and forces them into exile when they claim they are doing it for freedom™. the original action betrays their intentions all too well.

[Gravlen]

For my part, the problem is the involvement of the military. I would have no problem with Congress removing him from power, and I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying that it's legal for them to do so.

But getting the military to move in and removing him by force instead of using civilian remedies (like the police) is very problematic and, in my view, contrary to the rule of law they're claiming that they wanted to uphold.

That said, the reaction to his proposed referendum / survey by both Congress and the Supreme Court surprises and puzzles me.

[Aelosia]

For my part, the problem is the involvement of the military. I would have no problem with Congress removing him from power, and I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying that it's legal for them to do so.

But getting the military to move in and removing him by force instead of using civilian remedies (like the police) is very problematic and, in my view, contrary to the rule of law they're claiming that they wanted to uphold.

That said, the reaction to his proposed referendum / survey by both Congress and the Supreme Court surprises and puzzles me.

My thoughts exactly. I have the same position regarding this.

[Dempublicents1]

but totally par for the course. never believe anyone who militarily removes an elected official from power and forces them into exile when they claim they are doing it for freedom™. the original action betrays their intentions all too well.

I don't generally trust any politician who says they're doing something for freedom. As much as I doubt we can trust the Honduran government's word on what they were doing, I also highly doubt that Zalaya was pushing this referendum for any reason other than trying to keep himself in power.

[Gravlen]

but totally par for the course. never believe anyone who militarily removes an elected official from power and forces them into exile when they claim they are doing it for freedom™. the original action betrays their intentions all too well.

I don't generally trust any politician who says they're doing something for freedom. As much as I doubt we can trust the Honduran government's word on what they were doing, I also highly doubt that Zalaya was pushing this referendum for any reason other than trying to keep himself in power.

My question to this is:

How would this help keep him in power?