WTF is our leadership thinking WRT the situation in Honduras?

[Magox]

Suppose the president of the US wants a referendum on a third term and the Congress say's the proposed timing is illegal;

- the matter is escalated and Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral Tribunal, and the Commissionar for Human Rights all rule against him;

- the President proceeds to enact his plan, and the Supreme Court explicitely and unaminously rules his actions illegal and order the ballots confiscated;

- the President orders the army chief of staff to seize the ballots and administer the referendum themselves;

- the chief of staff declines on legal advice, he is fired the next day. The Supreme Court unanimously rules the firing illegal and orders him reinstated.

- the President issues an executive order instructing the ballots to be transfered and the referendum to be carried out by civil government employees.

- the Army acts on a warrent issued by the Supreme Court to arrest the President. Congress strips his authority and names the Speaker as President until the next elections.

 

Is this coup illegal?

I didn't want to fully commit one direction or another till I saw more details, but after reading more about it, to me there seems to be little doubt that what their court system decided, was legal. I just can't see how we can support Zelaya on this matter, and I hope that Obama and Clinton back down from their original position.

[GG]

Suppose the president of the US wants a referendum on a third term and the Congress say's the proposed timing is illegal;

- the matter is escalated and Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral Tribunal, and the Commissionar for Human Rights all rule against him;

- the President proceeds to enact his plan, and the Supreme Court explicitely and unaminously rules his actions illegal and order the ballots confiscated;

- the President orders the army chief of staff to seize the ballots and administer the referendum themselves;

- the chief of staff declines on legal advice, he is fired the next day. The Supreme Court unanimously rules the firing illegal and orders him reinstated.

- the President issues an executive order instructing the ballots to be transfered and the referendum to be carried out by civil government employees.

- the Army acts on a warrent issued by the Supreme Court to arrest the President. Congress strips his authority and names the Speaker as President until the next elections.

 

Is this coup illegal?

 

Coups are always illegal.

 

The problem, as I understand is that there's a major flaw in Honduras' constitution. All Zelaya's actions have been against the law. All his opponents' actions up to the coup were within the law. But the law doesn't have any provisions for removal or impeachment. If there were, this would be a non-issue, as he'd be impeached and then tossed out.

 

So, everyone is in legal limbo. The practical solution is to allow him back, and then arrest him for breaking the law. Do not allow his referendum to pass, and hold regularly scheduled elections in January and amend the constitution to allow impeachment.

[finknottle]

Coups are always illegal.

 

The problem, as I understand is that there's a major flaw in Honduras' constitution. All Zelaya's actions have been against the law. All his opponents' actions up to the coup were within the law. But the law doesn't have any provisions for removal or impeachment. If there were, this would be a non-issue, as he'd be impeached and then tossed out.

 

So, everyone is in legal limbo. The practical solution is to allow him back, and then arrest him for breaking the law. Do not allow his referendum to pass, and hold regularly scheduled elections in January and amend the constitution to allow impeachment.

 

You point re the lack of a clear-cut proceedure is well taken.

 

But my 'social' question is: are coups illegal when the military is acting under a warrant issued by the Supreme Court? Or are we influenced by our knee-jerk reaction against all things military? Would our reaction be the same if the SC had instructed the court baliffs to remove him from office?

[GG]

You point re the lack of a clear-cut proceedure is well taken.

 

But my 'social' question is: are coups illegal when the military is acting under a warrant issued by the Supreme Court? Or are we influenced by our knee-jerk reaction against all things military? Would our reaction be the same if the SC had instructed the court baliffs to remove him from office?

 

If the court order was pursuant to a legal action to remove him from office because he chained himself to the throne, then yes, the reaction was different. But because there is no legal action that I'm aware of to remove him from office, is why everyone is waffling.

 

Obama is acting on 1/2 of the right thing to do & say. He's correct to demand that Zelaya return. But, he should also be stern that Zelaya play by the laws of his country and not try to impose an imperial presidency, as that's not a true democracy. But since Obama doesn't like the messy affairs of international relations, he's silent on the latter.

[Magox]

Coups are always illegal.

 

The problem, as I understand is that there's a major flaw in Honduras' constitution. All Zelaya's actions have been against the law. All his opponents' actions up to the coup were within the law. But the law doesn't have any provisions for removal or impeachment. If there were, this would be a non-issue, as he'd be impeached and then tossed out.

 

So, everyone is in legal limbo. The practical solution is to allow him back, and then arrest him for breaking the law. Do not allow his referendum to pass, and hold regularly scheduled elections in January and amend the constitution to allow impeachment.

I am in no means an expert on the Honduran constitution, but I can tell you through experience, that what some of these Latin leftists are doing is outright criminal. In Bolivia, which is where I lived for a few years and still have a residency there, we have a guy there in charge named Evo, and what he is doing is something very similar to what Zelaya tried to do and what Chavez has all ready done. These guys are attempting to rewrite their constitutions and are trying to stay in power for the remainder of their lives ala Castro.

 

Your solution seems like a good one, but you are talking Latin America here, and things don't go over smoothly in those parts of the world. So in my view, it doesn't seem like a "practical" solution.

[finknottle]

If the court order was pursuant to a legal action to remove him from office because he chained himself to the throne, then yes, the reaction was different. But because there is no legal action that I'm aware of to remove him from office, is why everyone is waffling.

 

Obama is acting on 1/2 of the right thing to do & say. He's correct to demand that Zelaya return. But, he should also be stern that Zelaya play by the laws of his country and not try to impose an imperial presidency, as that's not a true democracy. But since Obama doesn't like the messy affairs of international relations, he's silent on the latter.

 

Congress had initiated a formal investigation into his fitness to serve, following the ouster of military chiefs. That suggests to me that there are provisions for removal. But he refused to cooperate, defiantly declaring in his two-hour address “Congress cannot investigate me, much less remove me or stage a technical coup against me, because I am honest. I’m a free president, and nobody scares me.”

 

The Supreme Court has claimed that it ordered his ouster - that is presumably pursuent to a legal action (though whether they can legally initiate them is probably questionable).

 

It all boils down to whether parts of the government have the authority to remove other parts of the government, absent clear proceedures for doing so. If you want to call it a coup, fine - but I'm inclined to consider it civil coup, not a military coup. And if the military were not the ones carrying out the orders of Congress and the Supreme Court, I doubt that the reaction would be the same.

[finknottle]

The practical solution is to allow him back, and then arrest him for breaking the law. Do not allow his referendum to pass, and hold regularly scheduled elections in January and amend the constitution to allow impeachment.

 

What exactly do you mean by "Do not allow his referendum to pass?" Holding the referendum was ruled illegal by both his attorney general and the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that you let him hold it anyway, but compete hard against it? Or not allow him to hold it? If the latter, how? That is the whole point of this crisis - his use of the military and other resources by executive order to carry out activities denied by the other institutions of government. His position is that he can and will, period.

[GG]

What exactly do you mean by "Do not allow his referendum to pass?" Holding the referendum was ruled illegal by both his attorney general and the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that you let him hold it anyway, but compete hard against it? Or not allow him to hold it? If the latter, how? That is the whole point of this crisis - his use of the military and other resources by executive order to carry out activities denied by the other institutions of government. His position is that he can and will, period.

 

But now that the military clearly backed the coup and the legislative & judicial branches are also aligned, as well as his own party, it is hard to see how his referendum will pass, even if he were to try to hold it.

 

But what I mean was, practically you could strike an arrangement with Zelaya to return as long as he abandons the referendum idea and just completes the end of his term.

 

But it is emblematic of LatAm that a major loophole in the law exists, but I'm guessing it's there to prevent monthly impeachment proceedings that would have occurred in Honduras in the early stages of their constitution. And I'm amazed at how peaceful this has been so far.

[DC Tom]

Suppose the president of the US wants a referendum on a third term and the Congress say's the proposed timing is illegal;

- the matter is escalated and Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral Tribunal, and the Commissionar for Human Rights all rule against him;

- the President proceeds to enact his plan, and the Supreme Court explicitely and unaminously rules his actions illegal and order the ballots confiscated;

- the President orders the army chief of staff to seize the ballots and administer the referendum themselves;

- the chief of staff declines on legal advice, he is fired the next day. The Supreme Court unanimously rules the firing illegal and orders him reinstated.

- the President issues an executive order instructing the ballots to be transfered and the referendum to be carried out by civil government employees.

- the Army acts on a warrent issued by the Supreme Court to arrest the President. Congress strips his authority and names the Speaker as President until the next elections.

 

Is this coup illegal?

 

Yes, the coup is illegal. On several points - posse comitatus, for starters, and two other obvious constitutional issues I can see (separation of powers, both between branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments).

 

But ignoring all those, which aren't your point...the coup would still be illegal. There's NO LEGAL BASIS for a military takeover of the elected government. Period. End of story. It may not be immoral or incorrect (and I would certainly support the arrest and impeachment of a president that tried to arbitrarily extend his term outside constitutional means), but don't confuse that with "legal".

[finknottle]

But ignoring all those, which aren't your point...the coup would still be illegal. There's NO LEGAL BASIS for a military takeover of the elected government. Period. End of story. It may not be immoral or incorrect (and I would certainly support the arrest and impeachment of a president that tried to arbitrarily extend his term outside constitutional means), but don't confuse that with "legal".

 

But what if it is *not* a military takeover, but rather a military removal under instructions by the rest of the elected government?

 

If the president goes bonkers and tries to take over the government by force, could Congress not strip him of his power and ask the military to remove him without it being labeled a military coup?

 

A military takeover suggests that the military runs things. While that may be the case behind the scenes in Honduras, it is anything but obvious. Outside of a 48 hour curfew and arrests of key politicians, things seems unchanged - no suspensions of poltical parties or gatherings, no colonel's in charge. Congress named the Speaker as his replacement, and announced that the elections would proceed as planned. It looks at this point like the rest of the elected government is still in charge.

[DC Tom]

But what if it is *not* a military takeover, but rather a military removal under instructions by the rest of the elected government?

 

If the president goes bonkers and tries to take over the government by force, could Congress not strip him of his power and ask the military to remove him without it being labeled a military coup?

 

That would be illegal.

 

Again, not necessarily wrong (and probably not possible)...but illegal nonetheless. And a coup.

[/dev/null]

That would be illegal.

 

Again, not necessarily wrong (and probably not possible)...but illegal nonetheless. And a coup.

 

Dressing up like Indians and dumping tea into Boston Harbor was illegal too

[finknottle]

That would be illegal.

 

Again, not necessarily wrong (and probably not possible)...but illegal nonetheless. And a coup.

 

Suppose we stubbornly thought that the South had been done wrong by President Lincoln, that he had no legal right to order the military into battle, and that he had no right to remove their elected officials.

 

Would you be calling the action an illegal military coup? Would you say it was the fault of the military and cite posse comitatus, or would you blame the Republican faction of the civilian government?

 

Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that the action of the Honduran Congress and Courts were legal by their laws - I simply don't know, and suspect not. I am taking umbrage at the knee-jerk reaction that this is a military coup, simply by virtue of the fact that the military executed the removal. I see no signs as yet that the military have acted on their own initiative and have taken power, and it looks more to me like was planned and authorized by Congress and the legal establishment.

[/dev/null]

Suppose we stubbornly thought that the South had been done wrong by President Lincoln, that he had no legal right to order the military into battle, and that he had no right to remove their elected officials.

 

Would you be calling the action an illegal military coup? Would you say it was the fault of the military and cite posse comitatus, or would you blame the Republican faction of the civilian government?

 

nozzlenut, pbills, pj, hedd, etc would probably blame Bush

[VOR]

I voted for Obama, and am now woefully regretting my decision. From the laughable attempts to reform health care, to "underestimating how bad the economy was," to cozying-up to dictators, and now this.

 

Regarding Honduras, while a coup is illegal, what Zelaya was trying to do was distribute rigged voting boxes that would allow him to change the Constitution and remove the presidental term limit, and thus become like Chavez (which is from whom Zelaya got the voting boxes). The military realized this and instead of letting the process play out, ousted him and installed a new civilian government. Basically one illegal act (coup) was trying to attempt another (rigged voting boxes), which would have led to the Constitution being changed. Naively defending "the Constitution of Honduras" and not seeing the larger picture, which can describe their efforts overall to date, is what troubles me the most WRT this administration.

[finknottle]

Here is a clear discussion and timeline of the legalities:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,1570598.story

 

I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I find it convincing.

 

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.

 

What you'll learn is that 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.

:

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 goes on to point out that his expulsion was probably illegal, but that he should not be returned to power based on the constitution's requirement that he cease being president, and that the government proceeded exactly as it should have in naming his successor.

[finknottle]

And another analysis concluding much the same thing:

 

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/a...-democracy.aspx

The crisis started when Zelaya called for a vote to determine whether or not a convention should be held to amend the constitution--and allow him to serve another term. The problem was that Article 239 of the Honduras constitution clearly prohibits a president from serving more than one term and indicates that anyone who tries to amend Article 239 should be removed from office and disqualified from performing any public responsibilities for ten years.

 

This one points out that saliant disconnect is between the US view of constitutionality which (by our constitution) permits any changes at all no matter how far reaching, versus certain other countries (such as post-Nazi Germany) which prohibits certain types of amendments.

[IDBillzFan]

I voted for Obama, and am now woefully regretting my decision. From the laughable attempts to reform health care, to "underestimating how bad the economy was," to cozying-up to dictators, and now this.

 

Good for you for admitting that. And I mean this seriously.

[VOR]

Good for you for admitting that. And I mean this seriously.

Believe me, I'm dismayed that I came to that conclusion this early.

[IDBillzFan]

Believe me, I'm dismayed that I came to that conclusion this early.

For what it's worth, you're not alone.