Some questions:
Now that the president has decided it’s okay to meddle in Honduras (where they are fighting to keep preserve their democracy against the Chávez-style thug who Obama wants to re-install) but not Iran (where thousands of Iranians who seek democracy are being killed, maimed and jailed by a regime which has been at war with the United States for 30 years), the president’s tack is to say that Honduras’s action in removing Zelaya is “not legal.”
What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation’s highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation’s Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I’d bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez.
Secondly, as IBD notes, the Obama administration is now “threatening to halt its $200 million in U.S. aid, immigration accords and a free-trade treaty if it doesn’t put the criminal Zelaya back into office.” Can someone explain to me how it is that Obama is willingly giving $900M to Hamastan (i.e., the jihadist-controlled Gaza strip) but would pull back a comparative pittance of aid in order to penalize a poor country in our own hemisphere for trying to preserve its democracy against a would-be left-wing dictator?
Also, as Charles Krauthammer said last night on Special Report:
…our decision ought to be: Yes, a coup isn’t a nice thing, but it’s preferable to having Zelaya dismantle the democracy. And we should insist on the elections of a president as scheduled in November, so it is a temporary situation.
Look, a rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.
Hey, left-wing dictators have to stick together.
[Update early evening]
Zelaya’s operatives did their dirt all the way through. First they got signatures to launch the “citizen’s power” survey through threats — warning those who didn’t sign that they’d be denied medical care and worse. Zelaya then had the ballots flown to Tegucigalpa on Venezuelan planes. After his move was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, he tried to do it anyway.
As a result of his brazen disregard for the law, Zelaya found himself escorted from office by the military Sunday morning, and into exile. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro rushed to blame the U.S., calling it a “yanqui coup.”
President Obama on Monday called the action “not legal,” and claimed that Zelaya is still the legitimate president.
There was a coup all right, but it wasn’t committed by the U.S. or the Honduran court. It was committed by Zelaya himself. He brazenly defied the law, and Hondurans overwhelmingly supported his removal (a pro-Zelaya rally Monday drew a mere 200 acolytes).
Yet the U.S. administration stood with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya’s lawful removal “a coup.” Obama called the action a “terrible precedent,” and said Zelaya remains president.
In doing this, the U.S. condemned democrats who stood up to save their democracy, a move that should have been hailed as a historic turning of the tide against the false democracies of the region.
They only like democracy when it gives them the right (in this case “left”) result.
I understand Chavez, Orteg, Castro, et al, but you would think that the President of the United States, a country BORN OF REBELLION, would easily see the people’s right to throw off an unpopular leader or gub’ment.
BOHICA has got to go.
I say we follow the Honduran lead. Soon.
It’s sad day when the US rather recognize the sovereignty of a single man than the rule of law of another country.
Leland,
The President IS NOT the “US”. He’s our duly elected President, but his power does not reach the level of him “being” the country. (yet) Even in his present position, I’m not sure he speaks for the country as “the”voice.
There are open, legal, allowable dissenting voices. His mumblings just gets all the press.
Whatever…. would you prefer, It’s a sad day when the US Department of State rather recognize the sovereignty of a single man than the rule of law of another country.
Just a bit wound up, are you?
I certainly understood Leland’s “the US” to mean “the current executive administration of the United States government.” In context, most would.
But, Sharpen, Obama speaks as our duly elected representative. While he is not the country, he speak for it. And he will do so for at least the next 3-1/2 years.
I can’t believe how the media are spinning this. They are all calling it a coup when the military only acted at the behest of the Supreme Court. What a bunch of idiots. Now, the UN is clapping for him. Kick them out of the US.
I’m curious what the exact process for impeachment is in Honduras? Does their Suprme Court have the power to unilaterally strip a leader of his/her position?
In the end, two wrongs don’t make a right. If the President of Honduras broke the law then follow due process and impeach him. To answer one illegal action with another illegal action is not completely justifiable in my book.
Don’t get me wrong. I certainly see the oddly disproportionate response from Obama to this compared to Iran.
If obama were a communist leftist what would we do differently here? Or with the economy? Or with funding our military?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU
Not sure what your point is, Godzilla, but we won’t have to send the Marines. All we have to do is stand by silently while Hugo or Raoul do it…
Gee… a left-wing socialist would-be dictator attempts to use extralegal means to bypass his country’s Constitution, granting himself an extra term (at least and for starters); his country’s agents of stability and law kick him to the curb and out of office…
…and people wonder why this strikes a little close to home for Barry O?
I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution. But:
1) This was a non-binding referendum.
2) It wasn’t going to happen, because the military wasn’t going to do it.
3) The military deposed the president before Congress even started the impeachment proceedings.
Josh Reiter is correct – two wrongs don’t make a right.
Perhaps you should first become a little familiar with the Honduran constitution before trying to judge their actions based on US laws.
Here is a good review of the issue from a blogger who originally considered the action a coup until they analyzed the constitution. The link provides the analysis.
I think the key part is Article 2. Here is an untirely different review of the Honduran Consitution written it appears before any of the recent events. It is matter of fact description of the constitution and provides this paragraph:
The organization of the Honduran state, national territory, and international treaties are covered in Title I of the constitution. As stated in Article 4, “The government is republican, democratic and representative” and “composed of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, which are complementary, independent, and not subordinate to each other.” In practice, however, the executive branch has dominated the other two branches of government. Article 2, which states that sovereignty originates in the people, also includes a provision new to the 1982 constitution that labels the supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power as “crimes of treason against the fatherland.” This provision can be considered an added constitutional protection of representative democracy in a country in which the military has a history of usurping power from elected civilian governments.
So what Zelaya did was essentially treason by definition of that country’s consitution. Don’t think so, let’s read Article 239:
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
This is the equivalent of the US 22nd amendment, except this one adds the caveat I emphasized that says even “proposing a reform” is a violation of the law and whoever does so will “immediately cease their function of public office”.
Zelaya violated the law of his country, and from everything I read about the Honduran law, I consider him lucky the military exiled him; rather than jail him and try him for treason. You can argue he deserved to be jailed and tried for violation of the Constitution, but he would be facing the charge of treason. There is no impeachment as the Supreme Court determined Zelaya violated article 239. That was his trial.
Leland – I did say I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution, so I bow to the analysis you cite.
Honduras really does need a constitutional convention, though, if only to define a clear impeachment process.