When a Coup Isn't

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Folks,

Here is a good editorial from the LA Times about the non-coup in Honduras:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story?track=rss

Darrell

Edited July 14, 2009 by Darrell Hougen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

Thank you for posting that. Here is a quote from the article of the most pertinent points.

... the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an "opinion survey." The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the "survey" -- and "fired" him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 -- three days before he was ousted -- Zelaya personally gathered a group of "supporters" and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the "survey" on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya's arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the country's army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court's order on the morning of the proposed survey.

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office.

If that isn't an impeachment, I don't know what is.

President Obama and the international community have been shameful in their handling and misrepresentation of this event.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

President Obama and the international community have been shameful in their handling and misrepresentation of this event.

I absolutely agree, which is why I posted it.

Darrell

[jeffrey smith]

Michael: remember that impeachment is only a prelude to trial, the equivalent of an indictment or information in a normal criminal case, and at least under our system, removal from office happens only on conviction.

What it seems to be is a case where both sides have acted improperly, and in a normal legal case they would be ordered back to the status quo ante if possible (big if), and then expected to carry on with the case in a more appropriate manner. Added to this is that the Honduran system apparently doesn't have a set procedure on who to remove a President from office when he acts as Zelaya did--no detailed statement of who gets to say the constitutional provisions were violated or who has the authority to actuall force him from office.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeffery,

I admit it is complicated, but things happen in context.

I see that the constitution of Honduras was set up in an almost ham-handed fashion to ensure that power would change hands periodically. I have no doubt this is because of history. I don't know it well, but from skimming the Wikipedia article, I see that the Honduras people had a pretty bitter experience with military dictatorships and wants nothing more to do with dictators.

So we have the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. If the spirit is to exclude the possibility of a dictator, and you have a dictator wannabe looking around all over the place and forcing technicalities that are in clear violation of that spirit, with one Supreme Court ruling after another against him, it makes sense to do something drastic before it is too late.

I see some USA Founding Father spirit in Honduras. "Throw the rascal out."

I can lament the legal infringement and ambiguities, but I admire the spirit. If the USA stays out of this mess, especially since we have a President who is on the wrong side of this issue, and other countries do too, I have little doubt Honduras will work things out just fine.

Without dictators.

Without secret police.

Without torture.

Without murder.

The way civilized people are supposed to do.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Michael: remember that impeachment is only a prelude to trial, the equivalent of an indictment or information in a normal criminal case, and at least under our system, removal from office happens only on conviction.

What it seems to be is a case where both sides have acted improperly, and in a normal legal case they would be ordered back to the status quo ante if possible (big if), and then expected to carry on with the case in a more appropriate manner. Added to this is that the Honduran system apparently doesn't have a set procedure on who to remove a President from office when he acts as Zelaya did--no detailed statement of who gets to say the constitutional provisions were violated or who has the authority to actuall force him from office.

Jeffery,

As you yourself say, the Honduran system doesn't appear to have a set procedure on how to remove a President from office. So, how can you say that both sides acted improperly?

Actually, the referenced article states that article 272 of the Honduran Constitution makes the military responsible for enforcing succession issues, which they did. So, I don't see anything improper with the actions of the opposition, other than the forcing of Zelaya to leave the country. Perhaps he should have been placed under arrest instead. Then, he could have been placed on trial.

We have a procedure in this country (the USA) for removing a president, but I wonder how well it would actually work if some president tried to seize power. The delay caused by impeachment proceedings and a trial might give the President time to consolidate power behind the scenes. Who knows. But I think any irregularities involving the way Zelaya was removed are far outweighed by Zelaya's own actions.

I also think the Attorney General of Honduras showed quite a bit intestinal fortitude to go against the President in the manner that he did. He actually undertook several legal actions against the President before calling for his arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras also carried out their duties admirably. It would have been easy for any one of them to shrink in fear from the duties they had to perform. Instead, they courageously performed them, pretty much as they should have been performed.

Believe me, if you've never been in a difficult situation, it's sometimes very difficult to even know what you're supposed to do. I think the courageous leaders of Honduras, other than Zelaya, should be applauded.

Darrell

Edited July 14, 2009 by Darrell Hougen

[kiaer.ts]

Michael is right that it is a shame the socialist congress of Chile didn't follow up in the case of Allende the way the Hondurans have with Zelaya.

As for impeachment, there is no need for delay in the US. The House could impeach and the Senate could convict the president in as much time as it took to summon the Chief Justice and have a vote, and file it with the Secretary of State. The technicalities are a prerogative of the Senate which has the sole power to try impeachment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael is right that it is a shame the socialist congress of Chile didn't follow up in the case of Allende the way the Hondurans have with Zelaya.

Ted,

Thank God for secret police, huh?

Who needs to wait on Congress when you have secret police to murder and torture college kids?

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Michael is right that it is a shame the socialist congress of Chile didn't follow up in the case of Allende the way the Hondurans have with Zelaya.

Ted,

Thank God for secret police, huh?

Who needs to wait on Congress when you have secret police to murder and torture college kids?

Michael

What, are you 13 years old, Michael? You really need to step back, look at your emotional issues, and deal with them, which are much more important than this scoring of points against straw men on an internet forum.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

You may be right.

After all, what's secret police to a person who has never lived with one?

Make believe it doesn't exist and poof! It goes away.

For some reason, I can't make that leap of faith and make excuses for that particular despicable evil.

Don't pay it no mind. It's probably nothing but an emotional issue that needs to be dealt with.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael is right that it is a shame the socialist congress of Chile didn't follow up in the case of Allende the way the Hondurans have with Zelaya.

Ted,

Let me make sure I understood correctly since I see the possibility of a misunderstanding.

1. I never did say or imply "it is a shame the socialist congress of Chile didn't follow up in the case of Allende." I have no idea why you attributed that thought to me and frankly, that irritated me. Here is a quote from Wikipedia which is basically correct so you can educate yourself on the Chilean congress during Allende:

Throughout his presidency, Allende remained at odds with the Chilean Congress, which was dominated by the Christian Democratic Party. The Christian Democrats (who had campaigned on a socialist platform in the 1970 elections, but drifted away from those positions during Allende's presidency, eventually forming a coalition with the National Party), continued to accuse Allende of leading Chile toward a Cuban-style dictatorship, and sought to overturn many of his more radical policies.

2. I do believe that had Allende continued, Congress would have reacted strongly enough against him to take him down. But that particular situation in Chile was a mess on many levels, not just Congress. Lots of strikes and all kinds of unrest. The USA and the communists were thick as thieves in fostering the unrest, too. It was nothing like the Honduras situation.

I already mentioned that Allende was incompetent. South American Latins are paternalists, or at least more comfortable with paternal politics than any other type. Allende was no papa. (Chavez is a papa. Castro is a papa.)

3. Since your comment was so erroneous, I presumed it was either (1) sarcasm, or (2) indicative of the same carelessness I have been complaining about in all your pronouncements about South America in all our discussions of it. In either case, I am very tired of people ignoring and/or excusing things like brutal secret police as they try to wax eloquent with Objectivist and/or libertarian arguments while getting the facts wrong.

It's not hard to understand things down there. You have to start by asking questions and reading about it and gathering facts about it. Not by deducing reality from principles and fudging over things like secret police. You are supposed to get principles from reality, not the contrary.

If I misunderstood you, please let me know.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

The Honduran situation should remind everyone how remarkable it is that the Supreme Court of the United States, which controls no enforcement apparatus of its own, can issue a ruling and it will normally be obeyed instantly, even by people who think the Court got it completely wrong.

Tocqueville found this phenomenon remarkable in the 1830s.

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, and its people have suffered under a long series of miserable, tyrannical governments. The Honduran Constitution is a new and fragile thing, and no one should be complaining that the military escorted across the border a President who was trying to violate several provisions of the Constitution (a couple of them carry an explicit penalty of immediate removal from office, according to what I've read).

The political cost to Barack Obama of siding with the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court during this crisis was close to zero. He still threw his support behind the President.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The Honduran situation should remind everyone how remarkable it is that the Supreme Court of the United States, which controls no enforcement apparatus of its own, can issue a ruling and it will normally be obeyed instantly, even by people who think the Court got it completely wrong.

Tocqueville found this phenomenon remarkable in the 1830s.

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, and its people have suffered under a long series of miserable, tyrannical governments. The Honduran Constitution is a new and fragile thing, and no one should be complaining that the military escorted across the border President who was trying to violate several provisions of the Constitution (a couple of which carry a penalty of immediate removal from office, according to what I've read).

The political cost to Barack Obama of siding with the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court during this crisis was close to zero. He still threw his support behind the President.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Obama really does believe the popular vote is the only important thing. This from a constitutional law professor...

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As time goes on, I am really starting to respect Micheletti and the people around him. Look at the teeth now being bared by Zelaya:

Ousted president calls for Honduras insurrection

AFP

July 15, 2009

Breitbart

From the article:

Deposed Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya has called for a popular insurrection in his country so he can be returned to power after soldiers removed him at gunpoint in June.

"The Honduran people have the right to insurrection," said Zelaya...

Right to insurrection???!!!

Good Lord!

Fighting a war, even a civil war, is not a right. It is an aggression or a defense. Rights have nothing to do with it.

But here is the wisdom of Micheletti and his people, also from the article:

The head of the Honduran army, General Romeo Vasquez, told AFP that Zelaya was exiled to avoid "deaths and injuries."

Honduran security services "believed it would be dangerous to imprison him," Vasquez said, adding such a move "could have caused deaths and injuries" if his supporters had tried to free him.

"The consequences for the country would have been serious," he said.

Micheletti thus avoided a trap that Israel is in: the creation of martyrs by thugs. At least impoverished Hondurans are not so brainwashed, and Zelaya is not so organized, that the poor folks will become suicide bombers. In their minds as normal poor folks, if Zelaya ain't around to spring out of jail, why get oneself killed?

Michael