Honduras did not have a Coup.

[RetiredGySgt]

Focus Divecon.

Who is "they"?

Please cite this source of "they" or the Honduran people you are refering to.

Do they exist?

Or did you make them up?

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

You still showing us your ignorance I see. Obama stated for the record he wants the old President back in office, already been linked for you dumb ass.

 

[Sweet Willy]

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

You still showing us your ignorance I see. Obama stated for the record he wants the old President back in office, already been linked for you dumb ass.

I know that. That part is clear. Obama has stated that he believes the removal was not legal.

Do you have information that demonstrates that the legal means to remove Zelaya is by military force?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Focus Divecon.

Who is "they"?

Please cite this source of "they" or the Honduran people you are refering to.

Do they exist?

Or did you make them up?

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

If I've followed this back and forth between you and Divecon correctly, it is you that is speculating that the Supreme Court may have acted illegitimately. Since the Supreme Court's job is to say what the law is, I'd say the burden is on you to provide support for believing that the Supreme Court may have acted improperly.

Until that time, Zelaya should do as the authorities say and submit himself without fanfare into custody to be arraigned and tried for treason and other crimes.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

You still showing us your ignorance I see. Obama stated for the record he wants the old President back in office, already been linked for you dumb ass.

I know that. That part is clear. Obama has stated that he believes the removal was not legal.

Do you have information that demonstrates that the legal means to remove Zelaya is by military force?

Zelaya said in his speech to the UN that there was no method provided for in the Honduran Constitution for impeachment. Therefore, if we are to believe in the rule of law, the President should be susceptible to the law in the same way that every citizen is. In this case by arrest and detention.

As I stated much earlier, it was a mistake by the military to deport him and not keep him jailed until his trial.

 

[Sweet Willy]

fuck off asshole
i'm done with your ignorance

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

If I've followed this back and forth between you and Divecon correctly, it is you that is speculating that the Supreme Court may have acted illegitimately. Since the Supreme Court's job is to say what the law is, I'd say the burden is on you to provide support for believing that the Supreme Court may have acted improperly.

Until that time, Zelaya should do as the authorities say and submit himself without fanfare into custody to be arraigned and tried for treason and other crimes.

Yes, I am speculating that the move may have been illegitimate. I only speculate, and admit it is my speculation, based upon the opinion of the OAS that the removal was illegal and the unanamous resolution by the UN of the same opinion and the admission by "they", in this case, "they" being a Honduran lawyer, who like myself, recognizes that Zelaya was guilty of criminal acts, but at the same time can recognize that he can not support the removal by coup.

“We may not all support the way Zelaya was removed, but we can agree that he committed crimes,” said Mauricio Villeda Jr., 31, a lawyer who participated in yesterday's rally. “

U.N.: Zelaya should be returned to power in Honduras – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs

OAS Demands Zelaya Retake Power as Supporters Protest (Update2) - Bloomberg.com


I am only asking Divecon, or anyone, to support their arguments. While I believe Zelaya acted criminally, it appears he was illegally removed from office. The UN and the OAS both have called it illegal, and a random Honduran lawyer that acknowledges Zelaya's crimes, also acknowledges problem with the removal.

There are few people that are going to call a coup legal. No sane nation is going to endorse the legality of a military coup.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You still showing us your ignorance I see. Obama stated for the record he wants the old President back in office, already been linked for you dumb ass.

I know that. That part is clear. Obama has stated that he believes the removal was not legal.

Do you have information that demonstrates that the legal means to remove Zelaya is by military force?

Zelaya said in his speech to the UN that there was no method provided for in the Honduran Constitution for impeachment. Therefore, if we are to believe in the rule of law, the President should be susceptible to the law in the same way that every citizen is. In this case by arrest and detention.

As I stated much earlier, it was a mistake by the military to deport him and not keep him jailed until his trial.

I would agree with you.

That would be the proper course of action, in my opinion, based upon the facts we have.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The order was for the detainment of Zelaya, IN HIS HIOME. This was the legal order, issued by the Supreme Court of Honduras.

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.

Zelaya objects to what others have objected to, the decision to force him from the country. That decision is not supported by any order or point of law. The order was only to detain him until he could face the charges made against him. The military has admitted that the exile was a last minute after thought, not a legal order.

Mr. Zelaya has challenged the legality of his ouster, telling reporters that whatever missteps he might have made did not justify his being put on a plane and sent out of the country.

“If I do something illegal, take me to court and give me the right to a defense,” he said. “But do not use the army to kidnap the president and carry him violently out of the country.”

Colonel Bayardo defended the president’s expulsion, saying there was a last-minute decision to send him out of the country, to lower tensions and prevent violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html

 

[Sweet Willy]

Divecon, FOCUS.


Can you support your position that the removal of Zelaya from office and the country was legal?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I take it you will not be providing any material to support your position that this was a legal action.

If I've followed this back and forth between you and Divecon correctly, it is you that is speculating that the Supreme Court may have acted illegitimately. Since the Supreme Court's job is to say what the law is, I'd say the burden is on you to provide support for believing that the Supreme Court may have acted improperly.

Until that time, Zelaya should do as the authorities say and submit himself without fanfare into custody to be arraigned and tried for treason and other crimes.

Yes, I am speculating that the move may have been illegitimate. I only speculate, and admit it is my speculation, based upon the opinion of the OAS that the removal was illegal and the unanamous resolution by the UN of the same opinion and the admission by "they", in this case, "they" being a Honduran lawyer, who like myself, recognizes that Zelaya was guilty of criminal acts, but at the same time can recognize that he can not support the removal by coup.

“We may not all support the way Zelaya was removed, but we can agree that he committed crimes,” said Mauricio Villeda Jr., 31, a lawyer who participated in yesterday's rally. “

U.N.: Zelaya should be returned to power in Honduras – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs

OAS Demands Zelaya Retake Power as Supporters Protest (Update2) - Bloomberg.com


I am only asking Divecon, or anyone, to support their arguments. While I believe Zelaya acted criminally, it appears he was illegally removed from office. The UN and the OAS both have called it illegal, and a random Honduran lawyer that acknowledges Zelaya's crimes, also acknowledges problem with the removal.

There are few people that are going to call a coup legal. No sane nation is going to endorse the legality of a military coup.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand the vagaries of the Honduran system, but it seems to be universally acknowledged that the military was tasked with the detention of Zelaya. I assume that this was the proper agency or there seems to be uncommon unanimity between the branches of government that this was the correct party to conduct the detention.

As I've said repeatedly here, I think the military erred in putting him on a plane. But, that can be corrected by charging them with their crime and trying them. We are not in a circumstance where the military has taken control of the country. To the contrary, the returned control to the civilians as soon as it was possible.

A military coup, is where the military decides that it will, sua sponte, remove the sitting government and take control. That is not what happened here. The military up to the point of placing Zeyala in custody, was acting on orders of the other two branches of government.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The order was for the detainment of Zelaya, IN HIS HIOME. This was the legal order, issued by the Supreme Court of Honduras.

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.

Zelaya objects to what others have objected to, the decision to force him from the country. That decision is not supported by any order or point of law. The order was only to detain him until he could face the charges made against him. The military has admitted that the exile was a last minute after thought, not a legal order.

Mr. Zelaya has challenged the legality of his ouster, telling reporters that whatever missteps he might have made did not justify his being put on a plane and sent out of the country.

“If I do something illegal, take me to court and give me the right to a defense,” he said. “But do not use the army to kidnap the president and carry him violently out of the country.”

Colonel Bayardo defended the president’s expulsion, saying there was a last-minute decision to send him out of the country, to lower tensions and prevent violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html

Thanks for reposting what I posted earlier in this thread. As I've said the removal from the country was in error. The remedy is not placing Zelaya back in charge. The remedy is putting him in the condition that he should have been placed when the army detained him. That is, in custody and charged with Treason.

The remedy is also, holding the members of the military responsible for their actions. Thus, the rule of law and the concept that nobody is above the law will prevail.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The order was for the detainment of Zelaya, IN HIS HIOME. This was the legal order, issued by the Supreme Court of Honduras.

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.

Zelaya objects to what others have objected to, the decision to force him from the country. That decision is not supported by any order or point of law. The order was only to detain him until he could face the charges made against him. The military has admitted that the exile was a last minute after thought, not a legal order.

Mr. Zelaya has challenged the legality of his ouster, telling reporters that whatever missteps he might have made did not justify his being put on a plane and sent out of the country.

“If I do something illegal, take me to court and give me the right to a defense,” he said. “But do not use the army to kidnap the president and carry him violently out of the country.”

Colonel Bayardo defended the president’s expulsion, saying there was a last-minute decision to send him out of the country, to lower tensions and prevent violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html

Thanks for reposting what I posted earlier in this thread. As I've said the removal from the country was in error. The remedy is not placing Zelaya back in charge. The remedy is putting him in the condition that he should have been placed when the army detained him. That is, in custody and charged with Treason.

The remedy is also, holding the members of the military responsible for their actions. Thus, the rule of law and the concept that nobody is above the law will prevail.

And I would agree. If Zelaya returns, he should be lawfully arrested. Should have been to begin with. He was only "detained", by any lawful order.

Most of the objections to this, even Zelayas own objections are to the failure to give him the opportunity to defend himself from the charges.

I think he would fail to do so but that's beside the point.

 

[DiveCon]

Divecon, FOCUS.


Can you support your position that the removal of Zelaya from office and the country was legal?

still showing your ignorance

 

[Sweet Willy]

Divecon, FOCUS.


Can you support your position that the removal of Zelaya from office and the country was legal?

still showing your ignorance

No, I am showing my opinion, supported by real information. And showing you the sources, the facts and the reasons for the intelligence I have acquired regarding this situation.

Can you support your position?

That is the only question here.

So far, you have made only vague accusations based on false premises and have provided no logical or meaningful support for your arguments.

President Obama has made no demands, has not insisted upon anything of the Hondurans. You fail.

The removal and subsequent expulsion of Zelaya has not been shown to be lawful, clearly, in any sense. It is questionable. The UN was unanamous, the OAS was unanamous in calling it illegal. You fail.

When asked for support for your arguments, you try to support them with playground tactics, electing not to support your arguments with credible sources. You fail.

In terms you can understand, you are full of crapola.

 

[DiveCon]

Divecon, FOCUS.


Can you support your position that the removal of Zelaya from office and the country was legal?

still showing your ignorance

No, I am showing my opinion, supported by real information. And showing you the sources, the facts and the reasons for the intelligence I have acquired regarding this situation.

Can you support your position?

That is the only question here.

So far, you have made only vague accusations based on false premises and have provided no logical or meaningful support for your arguments.

President Obama has made no demands, has not insisted upon anything of the Hondurans. You fail.

The removal and subsequent expulsion of Zelaya has not been shown to be lawful, clearly, in any sense. It is questionable. The UN was unanamous, the OAS was unanamous in calling it illegal. You fail.

When asked for support for your arguments, you try to support them with playground tactics, electing not to support your arguments with credible sources. You fail.

In terms you can understand, you are full of crapola.

no, you are being an ignorant asshole

 

[Sweet Willy]

still showing your ignorance

No, I am showing my opinion, supported by real information. And showing you the sources, the facts and the reasons for the intelligence I have acquired regarding this situation.

Can you support your position?

That is the only question here.

So far, you have made only vague accusations based on false premises and have provided no logical or meaningful support for your arguments.

President Obama has made no demands, has not insisted upon anything of the Hondurans. You fail.

The removal and subsequent expulsion of Zelaya has not been shown to be lawful, clearly, in any sense. It is questionable. The UN was unanamous, the OAS was unanamous in calling it illegal. You fail.

When asked for support for your arguments, you try to support them with playground tactics, electing not to support your arguments with credible sources. You fail.

In terms you can understand, you are full of crapola.

no, you are being an ignorant asshole

Are your opinions based on facts or not?

If so, please present them.

 

[DiveCon]

No, I am showing my opinion, supported by real information. And showing you the sources, the facts and the reasons for the intelligence I have acquired regarding this situation.

Can you support your position?

That is the only question here.

So far, you have made only vague accusations based on false premises and have provided no logical or meaningful support for your arguments.

President Obama has made no demands, has not insisted upon anything of the Hondurans. You fail.

The removal and subsequent expulsion of Zelaya has not been shown to be lawful, clearly, in any sense. It is questionable. The UN was unanamous, the OAS was unanamous in calling it illegal. You fail.

When asked for support for your arguments, you try to support them with playground tactics, electing not to support your arguments with credible sources. You fail.

In terms you can understand, you are full of crapola.

no, you are being an ignorant asshole

Are your opinions based on facts or not?

If so, please present them.

they've been presented, by me and by others
you choose to remain an ignorant asshole

 

[Sweet Willy]

no, you are being an ignorant asshole

Are your opinions based on facts or not?

If so, please present them.

they've been presented, by me and by others
you choose to remain an ignorant asshole

Others have presented the same info and similar conclusions as I.

You have not.

If you have any information to support your claims, again, I ask you to present them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Everyone is wrong about Honduras
Dan Rosenheck, National Post
Published: Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Venezuelan Presi dent Hugo Chavez and U. S. President Barack Obama make for strange bedfellows, but the two men have found an unlikely common cause in Manuel Zelaya.

A mustachioed rancher with a signature Stetson hat, Zelaya was toppled from Honduras' presidency on June 28 in Latin America's first successful military coup since the Cold War. His ouster has prompted a virtually unprecedented outbreak of consensus in the hemisphere, with every leader in the Americas demanding Zelaya's immediate reinstatement.

There's just one problem with this uncharacteristic eruption of regional harmony: It's likely to move Honduras even further away from the reestablishment of constitutional order that the international community claims to desire.

While the army's ultimate decision to whisk Zelaya out of the country was indeed an illegal coup, the deposed President bears full responsibility for plunging Honduras into the constitutional crisis that led to his extrajudicial removal from office.

In the 2005 election, he ran as a centrist law-and-order candidate and won a runoff vote by just four percentage points. To solidify his relatively weak mandate, he handed out generous salary increases to teachers and raised the minimum wage. This blew a hole in the budget; scared off the International Monetary Fund, which had previously made loans to Honduras; and forced Zelaya to turn to Chavez, Latin America's pre-eminent sugar daddy, for financing.

Chavez's price was that Honduras join his Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (recently rechristened the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), an anti-U. S. political trade bloc. The move stunned Honduras, a fiercely conservative nation that has traditionally been a staunch U. S. ally.

Zelaya, whose term ends in January 2010, further alienated voters by floating plans for a constituent assembly, a new constitutional convention that would enable him to remove the country's inconvenient ban on presidential re-election. The current Honduran constitution makes no provision for such a mechanism and explicitly states that its one-term limit can never be amended.

Zelaya's call for a poll asking Hondurans whether a formal vote should be held on staging a constituent assembly was ruled illegal by the nation's supreme court. The President went ahead anyway, ordering the army to distribute ballots. When General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, the head of the Honduran military, refused, Zelaya fired him; the supreme court then reinstated Gen. Vasquez and ordered the ballots confiscated. Finally, Zelaya himself led a group of supporters to an air force base to recover the ballots. This blatant disregard of judicial orders led the supreme court to issue a warrant for his arrest.

In virtually every other country in the world, Zelaya would have been removed from office. But, peculiarly, the Honduran constitution does not include an impeachment procedure -- congress is entitled to name a new president only in the absence of the current one.

So, rather than bringing Zelaya before a judge to be tried for his criminal misbehaviour, the army rousted him out of bed and flew him off to Costa Rica in his pajamas. The legislature then voted to replace him with Roberto Micheletti, the head of congress, who was next in the line of succession.

There is no doubt that this last move should not be allowed to stand. But the international community's single-minded insistence that Zelaya be reinstated as soon as possible -- ignoring his own campaign to undermine constitutional order --is likely to backfire.

Zelaya's behaviour has left him every bit as isolated within his country as Micheletti is outside of it. The entire Honduran political establishment, including virtually every member of congress, the courts, the military and the business community, is dead-set against his return.

And while the opinion of the population as a whole is tougher to measure -- no one has taken a poll in the last week -- the deck seems stacked against him. His approval rating was a mere 30% even before this episode began, and the demonstrations against him have been larger and more numerous than those in favour (although a strong military presence has surely caused many Zelaya supporters to stay home).

The region's leaders, who seem blind to these realities, have not budged from their campaign to shove Zelaya back down Honduras' throat. In fact, Jose Miguel Insulza, the secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS), along with the left-leaning presidents of Ecuador and Argentina, have volunteered to personally accompany Zelaya on his return to Honduras, as a "diplomatic shield" against his (entirely legitimate) arrest. (On Sunday, Zelaya's plane tried to land in Honduras -- but was diverted to Nicaragua after Honduran troops blocked it from landing.)

This has prompted a dangerous surge of reactionary, jingoistic nationalism in Honduras. The media are awash with accusations of "infiltration" by "communist" agents from Nicaragua and Venezuela, and Micheletti's backers feel the country's sovereignty is being trampled on. "Neither Chavez nor Obama should interfere with our country," said Rosario del Carmen, a government employee at an anti-Zelaya rally in Tegucigalpa's central square. "We already had a dictatorship in the '80s, and Zelaya was making another one."

By backing the Micheletti administration into a corner, the region's leaders are forcing it to take a defiant posture. Rather than allowing itself to be kicked out of the OAS, the new government pre-emptively withdrew from the organization on Saturday. The OAS "is a political organization, not a court," Micheletti wrote in a letter to Insulza, "and it can't judge us." The harder the international community pushes for Zelaya's reinstatement, the more determined plucky Hondurans will be to prevent it -- and to make it impossible for him to govern if he does return to office.

None of this means foreign governments should accept the coup and recognize Micheletti as president. But rather than framing the issue as a contest of wills, Insulza needs to recognize that Zelaya had sacrificed most of his political support and legitimacy in the weeks leading up to the coup and aim to engineer a negotiated solution. That means talking to Micheletti (which he refused to do on a visit to Tegucigalpa), offering Zelaya the option either to resign or to stand trial in Honduras and probably a call for swift new elections. The generals who gave the order to deport Zelaya should also be tried.

Finally, to make sure this situation never happens again, any deal should also include the introduction of an impeachment mechanism into the Honduran political system. Zelaya was right that the country needed constitutional change -- just not the one he was advocating.

Slate.com - Dan Rosenheck isThe Economist's bureau chief for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
nationalpost.com

 

[DiveCon]

Are your opinions based on facts or not?

If so, please present them.

they've been presented, by me and by others
you choose to remain an ignorant asshole

Others have presented the same info and similar conclusions as I.

You have not.

If you have any information to support your claims, again, I ask you to present them.

you are so ignorant that you believe the others have supported you, when in fact, what they have posted was in support of ME and the truth

 

[Epsilon Delta]

^^^ I'd say that was an instructive and fair take on the issue.

EDIT: I'm talking about the Slate article 2 posts above.