Not One Question Asked About Honduras Manuel Zelaya

[Nik]

This is scary. Our president is openly supporting a regime that wants to re-write the Honduran Constitution in efforts to extend his presidency. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that such a referendum was illegal. Yet we are supporting this joker who is thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court?

What? are we not to recognize our US Supreme Court decisions in this country Mr. President?

Geaux

So you support military coups then?

Strawman much.....oh yeah, it's Nik.

Thats a strawman?

So you think this is not a military coup? The military removed the democratically elected president. Thats pretty much the definition of a military coup.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you support military coups then?

Strawman much.....oh yeah, it's Nik.

Thats a strawman?

So you think this is not a military coup? The military removed the democratically elected president. Thats pretty much the definition of a military coup.

I'll wait until you answer my subsequent comment.

 

[Nik]

The partisan hack. Guarantee that if Obama came out for the coup, you would be supporting that!

What if the Iranian protests spiral into a coup, should We as Americans and Obama as our President no support that?

Nik, what do you jerkoff to at night? Let me guess, its a black man who happens to be the first Black American President!

You are supporting a MILITARY COUP. Of course I don't support that, it has nothing to do with Obama. Jesus christ you are fucking stupid.

The military did what it was supposed to do as part of the executive branch of government. It carried into execution the proper order of the court and refused to recognize the unlawful actions of the president.

This is about rule of law. If you buy the president's arguments then you are not for the rule of law and you believe that a personality is above the law. Therefore, it is you who are antidemocratic, anti-rule of law and supporting the creation of a dictatorship.

The Court said to arrest him. The Court did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You are supporting a MILITARY COUP. Of course I don't support that, it has nothing to do with Obama. Jesus christ you are fucking stupid.

The military did what it was supposed to do as part of the executive branch of government. It carried into execution the proper order of the court and refused to recognize the unlawful actions of the president.

This is about rule of law. If you buy the president's arguments then you are not for the rule of law and you believe that a personality is above the law. Therefore, it is you who are antidemocratic, anti-rule of law and supporting the creation of a dictatorship.

The Court said to arrest him. The Court did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else.

The court actually said:

When the army refused an order to help organize the survey, the president fired the armed forces commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. He was later reinstated by the Supreme Court, which found his removal illegal.

The detention order, signed on June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.

Now how you arrest someone for treason and abuse of authority and leave him in power I really don't understand. But that is what you claim should have been done. "did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else."

My understanding from no less than Zeyala himself is that (in his speech to the UN yesterday) is that Honduras has no process of impeachment. He claims that this was one of the "reforms" he was going to bring when he became democratic president for life.

So, given that the Supreme Court ordered the president arrested and charged with Treason etc. I'd say he got off light. In most countries, he'd have been killed. They merely ejected the tyrant. A mistake they will no doubt live to regret.

To this being a military coup, I'll let the military speak for themselves.

“A coup is a political move,” Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño said in an interview Tuesday night. “It requires the armed forces to assume power of the country, which didn’t happen, and it has to break the rule of law, which didn’t happen, either.”

The current acting President is the president of the Congress.

Quotes are from:
New York Times

 

[Nik]

The military did what it was supposed to do as part of the executive branch of government. It carried into execution the proper order of the court and refused to recognize the unlawful actions of the president.

This is about rule of law. If you buy the president's arguments then you are not for the rule of law and you believe that a personality is above the law. Therefore, it is you who are antidemocratic, anti-rule of law and supporting the creation of a dictatorship.

The Court said to arrest him. The Court did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else.

The court actually said:

When the army refused an order to help organize the survey, the president fired the armed forces commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. He was later reinstated by the Supreme Court, which found his removal illegal.

The detention order, signed on June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.

Now how you arrest someone for treason and abuse of authority and leave him in power I really don't understand. But that is what you claim should have been done. "did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else."

Again, where did the court say depose him and install someone else in there?

My understanding from no less than Zeyala himself is that (in his speech to the UN yesterday) is that Honduras has no process of impeachment. He claims that this was one of the "reforms" he was going to bring when he became democratic president for life.

So, given that the Supreme Court ordered the president arrested and charged with Treason etc. I'd say he got off light. In most countries, he'd have been killed. They merely ejected the tyrant. A mistake they will no doubt live to regret.

To this being a military coup, I'll let the military speak for themselves.

“A coup is a political move,” Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño said in an interview Tuesday night. “It requires the armed forces to assume power of the country, which didn’t happen, and it has to break the rule of law, which didn’t happen, either.”

The current acting President is the president of the Congress.

Quotes are from:
New York Times

Hmm the guys who just deposed the democratically elected leader doesn't think it was a coup? How surprising. Newsflash, Ahmadinejad thinks he won the election, that means its true!

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Court said to arrest him. The Court did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else.

The court actually said:



Now how you arrest someone for treason and abuse of authority and leave him in power I really don't understand. But that is what you claim should have been done. "did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else."

Again, where did the court say depose him and install someone else in there?

My understanding from no less than Zeyala himself is that (in his speech to the UN yesterday) is that Honduras has no process of impeachment. He claims that this was one of the "reforms" he was going to bring when he became democratic president for life.

So, given that the Supreme Court ordered the president arrested and charged with Treason etc. I'd say he got off light. In most countries, he'd have been killed. They merely ejected the tyrant. A mistake they will no doubt live to regret.

To this being a military coup, I'll let the military speak for themselves.


The current acting President is the president of the Congress.

Quotes are from:
New York Times

Hmm the guys who just deposed the democratically elected leader doesn't think it was a coup? How surprising. Newsflash, Ahmadinejad thinks he won the election, that means its true!

So you have no real response. I see.

No response to the President committing treason as charged by the supreme court. No response to the fact that the military is not in charge. No response to the fact that a democratically elected leader is in charge. No response to the fact that military was charged with detaining the president. No response to the fact that someone would have to be in charge after the president was detained. And finally no response to the fact that Honduras has no Constitutional way to remove a bad president.

So instead of providing a substantive response, you just spouted bullshit. This reminds me of the old lawyer adage:

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have the law on your side, argue the law.
If you have neither, argue the Constitution.
If you don't even have that, argue like hell.

Sonny, you're arguing like hell.

 

[Nik]

The court actually said:



Now how you arrest someone for treason and abuse of authority and leave him in power I really don't understand. But that is what you claim should have been done. "did NOT say to depose him and to install someone else."

Again, where did the court say depose him and install someone else in there?



Hmm the guys who just deposed the democratically elected leader doesn't think it was a coup? How surprising. Newsflash, Ahmadinejad thinks he won the election, that means its true!

So you have no real response. I see.

No response to the President committing treason as charged by the supreme court. No response to the fact that the military is not in charge. No response to the fact that a democratically elected leader is in charge. No response to the fact that military was charged with detaining the president. No response to the fact that someone would have to be in charge after the president was detained. And finally no response to the fact that Honduras has no Constitutional way to remove a bad president.

So instead of providing a substantive response, you just spouted bullshit. This reminds me of the old lawyer adage:

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have the law on your side, argue the law.
If you have neither, argue the Constitution.
If you don't even have that, argue like hell.

Sonny, you're arguing like hell.

The president was CHARGED with treason. Not conviction. That doesn't automatically depose him.

A democratically elected leader is in charge, just not the democratically elected leader who was elected to be in charge.

The military was charged with detaining the president, NOT with deposing him.

If the Constitution has no way of removing a bad president, well thats their bad luck. Or do you think a Constitutional flaw means you just get to do whatever the fuck you want?

There is a reason there has been worldwide condemnation. Its a pity the rightwing has a phobia with agreeing with anything Obama does, ever.

 

[Nik]

By the way, this has already been discussed.

From Toro:

Countries are right to condemn an overthrow of a democratically elected government by the army. Whatever one might think of Zelaya, he is the democratically elected head of government. Circumventing democracy should always be condemned by other democracies and those who believe in democracy. By not condemning the military coup of a democratically elected government, the United States would be undermining its own moral standing in the world.

One must remember that the Honduran army oversaw one of the most brutal dictatorships in Latin America, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, including women and children, in the 1980s. The fact that people might be a little jumpy about an institution with a history of such brutality against their own citizens is no surprise.

Having said that, the facts on the ground aren't black and white. Zelaya wanted to convene a constituent assembly to amend via a referendum the constitution to allow him to run for more than one term. The Supreme Court said that was illegal. The legislature, as I understand it, has that right, not the President. The legislature opposed Zelaya's initiative, including members of his own party. Zelaya ordered the army to enforce the voting of the referendum. The army refused because the Supreme Court said it was illegal. Zelaya then fired his defense minister who refused to cooperate and the top military commander. The Supreme Court ordered the army to arrest Zelaya. The new President, Micheletti, is a member of Zelaya's party.

So, countries are right to condemn the coup. However, it appears that Zelaya was attempting to break the law.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...nsues-in-honduras-after-president-ousted.html

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you have no real response. I see.

No response to the President committing treason as charged by the supreme court. No response to the fact that the military is not in charge. No response to the fact that a democratically elected leader is in charge. No response to the fact that military was charged with detaining the president. No response to the fact that someone would have to be in charge after the president was detained. And finally no response to the fact that Honduras has no Constitutional way to remove a bad president.

So instead of providing a substantive response, you just spouted bullshit. This reminds me of the old lawyer adage:

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have the law on your side, argue the law.
If you have neither, argue the Constitution.
If you don't even have that, argue like hell.

Sonny, you're arguing like hell.

The president was CHARGED with treason. Not conviction. That doesn't automatically depose him.

A democratically elected leader is in charge, just not the democratically elected leader who was elected to be in charge.

The military was charged with detaining the president, NOT with deposing him.

If the Constitution has no way of removing a bad president, well thats their bad luck. Or do you think a Constitutional flaw means you just get to do whatever the fuck you want?

There is a reason there has been worldwide condemnation. Its a pity the rightwing has a phobia with agreeing with anything Obama does, ever.

True, he was charged with treason among other things, by the supreme court. The military chose to eject him rather than put him in a prison cell so that they could lower the chance for violence by Zeyala supporters. I'm not sure I agree with that decision, but it's water under the bridge and I would think that he would prefer to have his freedom in exile to a cold cell in Honduras, but maybe not.

Detaining/deposing - distinction without a difference. Form over substance. If the President is exceeding his authority and flouting the Constitution, you cannot have a situation where he remains in control of the levers of power. He would have been deposed whether he remained in the country or not.

I disagree. The Constitution, not even the Honduran Constitution, is not a suicide pact. As I stated initially, the rule of law was protected in a Constitutional crisis. The Army acted on orders from the duly constituted Supreme Court in concert with the Congress to arrest an out of control dictator wannabe.

At the end of the day, succession to a democratically elected civilian official occurred. There is no military junta. There is no out of control military, it remains and remained at all times under control of civilian authority. This was the ouster of out of control a-hole that wanted to take the country into dictatorship. Why do you defend dictators against the oppressed?

I give a shit what Obama says on the subject. He clearly doesn't know what he's doing in foreign policy, so why pay attention. He doesn't know what it means to stand for freedom. He has no concept of leading the free world. He's much more comfortable being a back-bencher as he has his whole political life.

 

[Tech_Esq]

By the way, this has already been discussed.

From Toro:

Countries are right to condemn an overthrow of a democratically elected government by the army. Whatever one might think of Zelaya, he is the democratically elected head of government. Circumventing democracy should always be condemned by other democracies and those who believe in democracy. By not condemning the military coup of a democratically elected government, the United States would be undermining its own moral standing in the world.

One must remember that the Honduran army oversaw one of the most brutal dictatorships in Latin America, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, including women and children, in the 1980s. The fact that people might be a little jumpy about an institution with a history of such brutality against their own citizens is no surprise.

Having said that, the facts on the ground aren't black and white. Zelaya wanted to convene a constituent assembly to amend via a referendum the constitution to allow him to run for more than one term. The Supreme Court said that was illegal. The legislature, as I understand it, has that right, not the President. The legislature opposed Zelaya's initiative, including members of his own party. Zelaya ordered the army to enforce the voting of the referendum. The army refused because the Supreme Court said it was illegal. Zelaya then fired his defense minister who refused to cooperate and the top military commander. The Supreme Court ordered the army to arrest Zelaya. The new President, Micheletti, is a member of Zelaya's party.

So, countries are right to condemn the coup. However, it appears that Zelaya was attempting to break the law.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...nsues-in-honduras-after-president-ousted.html

Ok, well if TORO wants to make those points on this thread, then I guess he will. I'll respond, if and when that takes place. (Unless you want to associate yourself with those statements).

 

[Nik]

The president was CHARGED with treason. Not conviction. That doesn't automatically depose him.

A democratically elected leader is in charge, just not the democratically elected leader who was elected to be in charge.

The military was charged with detaining the president, NOT with deposing him.

If the Constitution has no way of removing a bad president, well thats their bad luck. Or do you think a Constitutional flaw means you just get to do whatever the fuck you want?

There is a reason there has been worldwide condemnation. Its a pity the rightwing has a phobia with agreeing with anything Obama does, ever.

True, he was charged with treason among other things, by the supreme court. The military chose to eject him rather than put him in a prison cell so that they could lower the chance for violence by Zeyala supporters. I'm not sure I agree with that decision, but it's water under the bridge and I would think that he would prefer to have his freedom in exile to a cold cell in Honduras, but maybe not.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the military gets to make that choice?

Detaining/deposing - distinction without a difference. Form over substance. If the President is exceeding his authority and flouting the Constitution, you cannot have a situation where he remains in control of the levers of power. He would have been deposed whether he remained in the country or not.

A distinction without a difference? Really? If Clinton was arrested, he would have been automatically thrown out of power? Is this honestly what you believe?

Or would it actually have been that his VP would have assumed responsibilities until he was released or impeached? There is a huge difference between allowing someone else temporary powers, and unilaterally deciding that the president is going to be deposed and someone else will be in power.

I disagree. The Constitution, not even the Honduran Constitution, is not a suicide pact. As I stated initially, the rule of law was protected in a Constitutional crisis. The Army acted on orders from the duly constituted Supreme Court in concert with the Congress to arrest an out of control dictator wannabe.

The rule of law? The military extrajudicially ejected the president from power. The court never said to depose him, and they never said to give anyone else power.

At the end of the day, succession to a democratically elected civilian official occurred. There is no military junta. There is no out of control military, it remains and remained at all times under control of civilian authority. This was the ouster of out of control a-hole that wanted to take the country into dictatorship. Why do you defend dictators against the oppressed?

It remained under civilian authority? Really? Whose civilian authority exactly?

I give a shit what Obama says on the subject. He clearly doesn't know what he's doing in foreign policy, so why pay attention. He doesn't know what it means to stand for freedom. He has no concept of leading the free world. He's much more comfortable being a back-bencher as he has his whole political life.

Way to show off your ignorance there. I'm sure you think he should have been all involved in the Iranian protests, right?

 

[Nik]

By the way, this has already been discussed.

From Toro:

Countries are right to condemn an overthrow of a democratically elected government by the army. Whatever one might think of Zelaya, he is the democratically elected head of government. Circumventing democracy should always be condemned by other democracies and those who believe in democracy. By not condemning the military coup of a democratically elected government, the United States would be undermining its own moral standing in the world.

One must remember that the Honduran army oversaw one of the most brutal dictatorships in Latin America, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, including women and children, in the 1980s. The fact that people might be a little jumpy about an institution with a history of such brutality against their own citizens is no surprise.

Having said that, the facts on the ground aren't black and white. Zelaya wanted to convene a constituent assembly to amend via a referendum the constitution to allow him to run for more than one term. The Supreme Court said that was illegal. The legislature, as I understand it, has that right, not the President. The legislature opposed Zelaya's initiative, including members of his own party. Zelaya ordered the army to enforce the voting of the referendum. The army refused because the Supreme Court said it was illegal. Zelaya then fired his defense minister who refused to cooperate and the top military commander. The Supreme Court ordered the army to arrest Zelaya. The new President, Micheletti, is a member of Zelaya's party.

So, countries are right to condemn the coup. However, it appears that Zelaya was attempting to break the law.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...nsues-in-honduras-after-president-ousted.html

Ok, well if TORO wants to make those points on this thread, then I guess he will. I'll respond, if and when that takes place. (Unless you want to associate yourself with those statements).

I didn't make them, but yes they are true if thats what you mean by "associating". I was providing you with a clear and concise description of the situation, since you seem to lack basic understanding of whats going on.

 

[Tech_Esq]

True, he was charged with treason among other things, by the supreme court. The military chose to eject him rather than put him in a prison cell so that they could lower the chance for violence by Zeyala supporters. I'm not sure I agree with that decision, but it's water under the bridge and I would think that he would prefer to have his freedom in exile to a cold cell in Honduras, but maybe not.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the military gets to make that choice?



A distinction without a difference? Really? If Clinton was arrested, he would have been automatically thrown out of power? Is this honestly what you believe?

Or would it actually have been that his VP would have assumed responsibilities until he was released or impeached? There is a huge difference between allowing someone else temporary powers, and unilaterally deciding that the president is going to be deposed and someone else will be in power.



The rule of law? The military extrajudicially ejected the president from power. The court never said to depose him, and they never said to give anyone else power.



It remained under civilian authority? Really? Whose civilian authority exactly?

I give a shit what Obama says on the subject. He clearly doesn't know what he's doing in foreign policy, so why pay attention. He doesn't know what it means to stand for freedom. He has no concept of leading the free world. He's much more comfortable being a back-bencher as he has his whole political life.

Way to show off your ignorance there. I'm sure you think he should have been all involved in the Iranian protests, right?

You have a problem separating our Constitution from THEIR Constitution. Your response to bad President was "tough shit" in your response above. Our Constitution has protections theirs doesn't. So they have to live with what they have. The Judicial and Congressional branches acted in concert during a Constitutional crisis to take the needed steps to protect their country. If the military exceeded their authority or mandate under those two branches of the government, then I would suggest it they be held to account by the Congress and the Judiciary for those actions. The Colonel did say the military took those decisions itself. So they are on the record and on the hook for those actions. Whoever those individual officers are.

Yes, distinction without difference in THEIR country. Beyond that I'll stick to what I said initially. This has nothing to do with Clinton. That's our country, our Constitution.

Lastly, I think that what Obama should have done during the Iranian protests was to make strong but non-directed statements concerning the United States' feelings concerning liberty, freedom and the principles upon which this country was built. He did not have to direct the statements at Iran or the protesters or call out the Iranian government. He only needed to shine the light of freedom like the beacon that the people of the world expect America to be. That's part of his job. My guess is he's VERY uncomfortable doing that part of his job. I wonder why.

 

[Nik]

And where in the Constitution does it say that the military gets to make that choice?



A distinction without a difference? Really? If Clinton was arrested, he would have been automatically thrown out of power? Is this honestly what you believe?

Or would it actually have been that his VP would have assumed responsibilities until he was released or impeached? There is a huge difference between allowing someone else temporary powers, and unilaterally deciding that the president is going to be deposed and someone else will be in power.



The rule of law? The military extrajudicially ejected the president from power. The court never said to depose him, and they never said to give anyone else power.



It remained under civilian authority? Really? Whose civilian authority exactly?



Way to show off your ignorance there. I'm sure you think he should have been all involved in the Iranian protests, right?

You have a problem separating our Constitution from THEIR Constitution. Your response to bad President was "tough shit" in your response above. Our Constitution has protections theirs doesn't. So they have to live with what they have.

Yes, they do. And part of that is not acting outside the Constitution, regardless of whether those actions suck or not. And I'm fully aware of the difference between our respective Constitutions. Save the strawmen for someone else.

The Judicial and Congressional branches acted in concert during a Constitutional crisis to take the needed steps to protect their country. If the military exceeded their authority or mandate under those two branches of the government, then I would suggest it they be held to account by the Congress and the Judiciary for those actions. The Colonel did say the military took those decisions itself. So they are on the record and on the hook for those actions. Whoever those individual officers are.

The military took those actions themselves. Therefore, those actions were extrajudicial, and illegal. Comprende yet?

Lastly, I think that what Obama should have done during the Iranian protests was to make strong but non-directed statements concerning the United States' feelings concerning liberty, freedom and the principles upon which this country was built. He did not have to direct the statements at Iran or the protesters or call out the Iranian government. He only needed to shine the light of freedom like the beacon that the people of the world expect America to be. That's part of his job. My guess is he's VERY uncomfortable doing that part of his job. I wonder why.

Of course thats your guess. But then I've always known you were a partisan hack.

 

[Tech_Esq]

By the way, this has already been discussed.

From Toro:



http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...nsues-in-honduras-after-president-ousted.html

Ok, well if TORO wants to make those points on this thread, then I guess he will. I'll respond, if and when that takes place. (Unless you want to associate yourself with those statements).

I didn't make them, but yes they are true if thats what you mean by "associating". I was providing you with a clear and concise description of the situation, since you seem to lack basic understanding of whats going on.

I'd say it's you that don't know what's going on. I heard what's going on by listening to Zeyala's torpid speech to the UN yesterday and his Bullshit account of what the events leading up to the his arrest were up to and including his hiding from the army in his "night clothes," his capture and being put on an airplane out of the country. If you listened to what he said and you still believe that this is illegitimate, then there is really little hope for you.

He tried to say that his "poll" was just like a Gallup poll. It had no binding effect. He was just trying to see what the people thought about certain political topics. He said he wanted there to be paper ballots for this "poll" because the people don't have phones or postal service, so instead, he wanted to do outreach to them.

Oh, but if you are still buying that, wait, it gets better. While saying this was non-binding and had nothing to do with him or his political future, he said that he had arranged for many observers to be on the ground to guarantee how fair an equitable the "poll" was. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen international observers needed for a Gallup poll. So, the upshot, in Zeyala's opinion, therefore the Supreme Court's opinion was not fair or honest because he never tried to do what they said.

It is really such a load of bullshit, that if you can't see through it, you are either dishonest or support leftist dictators. There really is no other option.

 

[del]

Ok, well if TORO wants to make those points on this thread, then I guess he will. I'll respond, if and when that takes place. (Unless you want to associate yourself with those statements).

I didn't make them, but yes they are true if thats what you mean by "associating". I was providing you with a clear and concise description of the situation, since you seem to lack basic understanding of whats going on.

I'd say it's you that don't know what's going on. I heard what's going on by listening to Zeyala's torpid speech to the UN yesterday and his Bullshit account of what the events leading up to the his arrest were up to and including his hiding from the army in his "night clothes," his capture and being put on an airplane out of the country. If you listened to what he said and you still believe that this is illegitimate, then there is really little hope for you.

He tried to say that his "poll" was just like a Gallup poll. It had no binding effect. He was just trying to see what the people thought about certain political topics. He said he wanted there to be paper ballots for this "poll" because the people don't have phones or postal service, so instead, he wanted to do outreach to them.

Oh, but if you are still buying that, wait, it gets better. While saying this was non-binding and had nothing to do with him or his political future, he said that he had arranged for many observers to be on the ground to guarantee how fair an equitable the "poll" was. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen international observers needed for a Gallup poll. So, the upshot, in Zeyala's opinion, therefore the Supreme Court's opinion was not fair or honest because he never tried to do what they said.

It is really such a load of bullshit, that if you can't see through it, you are either dishonest or support leftist dictators. There really is no other option.

nikki's up to doing both- he's a multitasking kinda guy.

 

[Nik]

Ok, well if TORO wants to make those points on this thread, then I guess he will. I'll respond, if and when that takes place. (Unless you want to associate yourself with those statements).

I didn't make them, but yes they are true if thats what you mean by "associating". I was providing you with a clear and concise description of the situation, since you seem to lack basic understanding of whats going on.

I'd say it's you that don't know what's going on. I heard what's going on by listening to Zeyala's torpid speech to the UN yesterday and his Bullshit account of what the events leading up to the his arrest were up to and including his hiding from the army in his "night clothes," his capture and being put on an airplane out of the country. If you listened to what he said and you still believe that this is illegitimate, then there is really little hope for you.

He tried to say that his "poll" was just like a Gallup poll. It had no binding effect. He was just trying to see what the people thought about certain political topics. He said he wanted there to be paper ballots for this "poll" because the people don't have phones or postal service, so instead, he wanted to do outreach to them.

Oh, but if you are still buying that, wait, it gets better. While saying this was non-binding and had nothing to do with him or his political future, he said that he had arranged for many observers to be on the ground to guarantee how fair an equitable the "poll" was. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen international observers needed for a Gallup poll. So, the upshot, in Zeyala's opinion, therefore the Supreme Court's opinion was not fair or honest because he never tried to do what they said.

It is really such a load of bullshit, that if you can't see through it, you are either dishonest or support leftist dictators. There really is no other option.

Zelaya isn't exactly an upstanding guy. But that doesn't mean the military gets to unilaterally remove him from power. Thats just not the way it works. As I said, you are supporting a military coup. Really rather pathetic on your part, but then rightwingers don't believe in Democracy, only in countries that agree with us.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You have a problem separating our Constitution from THEIR Constitution. Your response to bad President was "tough shit" in your response above. Our Constitution has protections theirs doesn't. So they have to live with what they have.

Yes, they do. And part of that is not acting outside the Constitution, regardless of whether those actions suck or not. And I'm fully aware of the difference between our respective Constitutions. Save the strawmen for someone else.



The military took those actions themselves. Therefore, those actions were extrajudicial, and illegal. Comprende yet?

Lastly, I think that what Obama should have done during the Iranian protests was to make strong but non-directed statements concerning the United States' feelings concerning liberty, freedom and the principles upon which this country was built. He did not have to direct the statements at Iran or the protesters or call out the Iranian government. He only needed to shine the light of freedom like the beacon that the people of the world expect America to be. That's part of his job. My guess is he's VERY uncomfortable doing that part of his job. I wonder why.

Of course thats your guess. But then I've always known you were a partisan hack.

So, the president can act outside the Constitution and should be protected if he does so, but if the military acts outside it while on orders from the judiciary and the congress then it should be what?

My opinion is that if individuals actions exceeded their authority, then they should be held to account. The president can be tried in absentia for treason. The officers for whatever unauthorized actions they took. Two wrongs don't make a right. But, as I said before, he'd be sitting in a jail cell not running the country. I haven't seen anyone show evidence that the president of the congress is not the next in line to the presidency.

That's all you got? Partisan hack? For whom am I a partisan hack? I'm on the right, but I'm not a Republican. I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. However, I'm not on the right on every issue. Many social issues I'm on the left. In foreign policy, I'm a Morganthauian, nationalist and unapologetic about it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I didn't make them, but yes they are true if thats what you mean by "associating". I was providing you with a clear and concise description of the situation, since you seem to lack basic understanding of whats going on.

I'd say it's you that don't know what's going on. I heard what's going on by listening to Zeyala's torpid speech to the UN yesterday and his Bullshit account of what the events leading up to the his arrest were up to and including his hiding from the army in his "night clothes," his capture and being put on an airplane out of the country. If you listened to what he said and you still believe that this is illegitimate, then there is really little hope for you.

He tried to say that his "poll" was just like a Gallup poll. It had no binding effect. He was just trying to see what the people thought about certain political topics. He said he wanted there to be paper ballots for this "poll" because the people don't have phones or postal service, so instead, he wanted to do outreach to them.

Oh, but if you are still buying that, wait, it gets better. While saying this was non-binding and had nothing to do with him or his political future, he said that he had arranged for many observers to be on the ground to guarantee how fair an equitable the "poll" was. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen international observers needed for a Gallup poll. So, the upshot, in Zeyala's opinion, therefore the Supreme Court's opinion was not fair or honest because he never tried to do what they said.

It is really such a load of bullshit, that if you can't see through it, you are either dishonest or support leftist dictators. There really is no other option.

Zelaya isn't exactly an upstanding guy. But that doesn't mean the military gets to unilaterally remove him from power. Thats just not the way it works. As I said, you are supporting a military coup. Really rather pathetic on your part, but then rightwingers don't believe in Democracy, only in countries that agree with us.

How exactly did the military act unilaterally? A couple of officers may have made a bad decision about the president's disposition after he was arrested, but up to that point it was FAR from unilateral and therefore NOT a military coup.

 

[Nik]

Yes, they do. And part of that is not acting outside the Constitution, regardless of whether those actions suck or not. And I'm fully aware of the difference between our respective Constitutions. Save the strawmen for someone else.



The military took those actions themselves. Therefore, those actions were extrajudicial, and illegal. Comprende yet?



Of course thats your guess. But then I've always known you were a partisan hack.

So, the president can act outside the Constitution and should be protected if he does so, but if the military acts outside it while on orders from the judiciary and the congress then it should be what?

My opinion is that if individuals actions exceeded their authority, then they should be held to account. The president can be tried in absentia for treason. The officers for whatever unauthorized actions they took. Two wrongs don't make a right. But, as I said before, he'd be sitting in a jail cell not running the country. I haven't seen anyone show evidence that the president of the congress is not the next in line to the presidency.

That's all you got? Partisan hack? For whom am I a partisan hack? I'm on the right, but I'm not a Republican. I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. However, I'm not on the right on every issue. Many social issues I'm on the left. In foreign policy, I'm a Morganthauian, nationalist and unapologetic about it.

Who said the president can act outside the Constitution and should be protected if he does? Certainly not me. Perhaps you can leave out the strawmen, eh?

The officers unauthorized actions are fixable. Re-instate the president. You don't just punish people who commit crimes, you try to fix the ill that occurred. Surely you know this.

Oh...heres a fun little gem.

Then Congress produced what it said was Mr Zelaya's letter of resignation, which it voted to accept. The ousted president dismissed the letter as a fake.

Wow. Incredibly legitimate process you are justifying there Tech. They forged a letter and accepted it.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Honduran leader forced into exile

Process matters. This was nothing more than a military coup which you are justifying.