Obama: Ouster of Honduran president Zelaya was coup

[subsuelo]

Source: Reuters

GUADALAJARA, Mexico (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday it was hypocritical for critics of Washington's response to a coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to demand a more forceful U.S. role in returning him to power.

Zelaya, an ally of anti-U.S. leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said last week the United States needs "only tighten its fist" to evict the de facto government installed after he was overthrown in June.

"The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say we are always intervening and the yanquis need to get out of Latin America," Obama said told a closing news conference at a U.S.-Mexico-Canada summit in Guadalajara.

"You can't have it both ways," he insisted, without naming names. "We have been very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup and that he should return. We have cooperated with all the international bodies in sending that message."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5793UL20090810

[madrchsod]

1. although i have issues with barack at least........

he can think about a complex issue and deliver a "dammed if i do,dammed if i do`t"!

[EFerrari]

33. Except he's not telling the whole truth. The coupsters did receive funds

from the State Department, the Honduran military is nearly completely dependent on the Pentagon, and Obama has not cut off all the aid or stopped training the Honduran military.

He can't have it both ways. We are interfering -- on the side of the coup.

[timeforpeace]

56. Agree on that. "You can't have it both ways," he insisted as he tried to have it both ways.

This prevarication seems to come quite naturally. Is that better or worse than stupid ie Bush?

[EFerrari]

63. I don't understand why you post to this website. n/t

[Armchair QB]

2. How was this a coup when it was ordered by their Supreme Court

and Legislature, and the person in charge now is from the same party?
I've never understood this whole thing or why it was considered a coup when the president violated a ruling from the supreme court.

[timeforpeace]

3. Correct. Here's the thread explaining it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6261947&mesg_id=6261947

[Flaneur]

5. I get it. You're right, Obama's wrong, case closed.

[Armchair QB]

9. Is it not possible for Obama to be wrong on this?

seriously, I just know what I've read. There are people calling it a coup, but I've seen nothing to indicate the government was overthrown, just the president removed by order of their Supreme Court

[jody]

27. Infallible people are always misunderstood by fallible humans. n/t

[Flaneur]

39. Obama, the UN General Assembly, the OAS, the other Latin American...

...countries all agree: It was a coup. The president of the country was kidnapped and deported at gunpoint by soldiers, after the Supreme Court questionably ruled his preparing a non-binding referendum was unconstitutional.

Would you want Obama kidnapped and deported at gunpoint if the US Supreme Court ruled something he had done was unconstitutional?

[Armchair QB]

40. If all those people agreed that up was down, would that make it so?

From what I've seen, the president violated the law, the non binding referendum was ordered to be ceased by the court.

[EFerrari]

43. The court cannot legitimately block a nonbinding survey.

What THEY did is illegal.

[Armchair QB]

48. Can you show me that in Honduran Law?

[EFerrari]

51. This is an easier way to see the same thing,. They pieced together

their justification in retro:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20910

The court had no grounds to block the voting. Their argument about term limits did not obtain in this case because the survey didn't even mention term limits.

[Armchair QB]

55. thanks

[DLnyc]

99. removing a president at gunpoint, and killing the vice-president, is legal?

True, you don't understand. But maybe you should try harder. IMO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. When was the Honduran VP killed?

[DLnyc]

111. Sorry, not the VP, but a leftist candidate was (wrongly?) reported to have been

assassinated the day of the coup. Now, checking the story, I see that it looks like those reports probably were false??

---

Luther Castillo, coordinator of Honduran social movements, in an interview with the Cuban television program Mesa Redonda, denied that the leader of the Democratic Unification Party, Cesar Ham, has been assassinated.

Castillo also denied that Ham has been detained and said that he remains in a secure location, faced with the possibility of repression by the coup leaders.

Initial versions published by the Notimex Agency stated that Cesar Ham, congressman for the Democratic Unification Party of Honduras, had died yesterday when he was being arrested in his house, according to confirmations provided by alleged police sources.

With respect to the situation of the leaders of the Democratic Unification Party, an organization that was born out of the fusion of historically left forces in Honduras, Deputy Thomas Andino Mencias, stated that the his party's parliamentarians did not participate in the congressional session because they are being detained by the military for not approving the usurpation of the legislative branch.

....
------

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/correction-honduran-presidential-candidate-still-alive

I'm not sure now what the true story is . . .

on edit: My apologies for
a) remembering the story wrong (candidate, not VP)
and
b) carelessly posting before checking the latest info on those reports.

[IDFbunny]

98. Would it matter if it were Smirk? nt

[harmonicon]

127. oh, you again

Do you not understand the ties between these activities? One president was illegally removed by a supreme court, while another was illegal appointed by a supreme court. I ask again, why do you hate democracy?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. The deportation was illegal, removal from office was legal

You can question the Honduran Supreme Court all you want, but in the end, they are the final authority on Honduran law.

[Joe Chi Minh]

132. You make it sound as if Hitler's and Pol Pot's laws should have been sacrosanct.

Is that what you mean, Professor Dum Dum?

[struggle4progress]

31. Miguel A. Estrada is a rightwing Bushbot. W attempted to shove him onto the DC Circuit

Court of Appeals and was fortunately defeated

[Peace Patriot]

6. You think the Supreme Court can order the president dragged from his bed at gunpoint,

kidnapped and flown out of the country in a plane with blackened windows, declaration of martial law, shutdown of the media, the beating, arrest and deportation of reporters, the roundup and arrest of at least one thousand political prisoners, use of live ammunition on peaceful protestors and the other outrages that are occurring in Honduras?

The Supreme Court can do all of this? What country do you live in? Oh, I'm sorry, you probably live in the U.S., where the Supreme Court can overturn a presidential election and install "the little prince" as king. You are to be forgiven. You clearly have forgotten what the "rule of law" is all about.

[Armchair QB]

8. It doesn't matter what I think, what matters are the laws of the country

I only know what I've read. The president violated the law, the president was arrested and exiled. He was replaced with the person who was second in line for the presidency, per their constitution. There will be elections in November to have a new president elected.

Now, if this is factually wrong, please direct me to a source that corrects what I've read. I see it called a coup, when the government wasn't overthrown, the president was replaced with the person who was 2nd in line for the presidency on an order from the Supreme Court and the Legislature.

[atreides1]

11. It was a coup under the accepted definition.

A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the State Establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

[Armchair QB]

12. But the government wasn't deposed. The president was removed from power

on a 15-0 vote from the supreme court, which I understand is made up from a majority of his own political party. He was replaced by the man who was constitutionally 2nd in line for the presidency.
I would rather rely on the laws of the country in question than a standard definition which gives no consideration for the actual facts in this case.

[EFerrari]

37. Yes, the government was deposed, not only the president.

And the Honduran Supreme Court is notorious for their corruption. What they did was illegal under Honduran law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. Who else was removed?

[EFerrari]

103. Zelaya's government from ministers to ambassadors.

As I recall, his foreign minister was also expatriated. She called the ambassadors from Ven and Ecuador and they tried to protect her but were themselves picked up by the goons and left on the side of the road on the way to take her to the airport.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. You are aware that the formal line of succession was followed?

[EFerrari]

105. What does that mean to you?

The sitting president was kidnapped and expatriated illegally by the military.

There is no "formal line of secession". No one has legally succeeded Zelaya.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. There was no sitting VP so he was replaced by the 3rd in line.

The highest authority on Honduran law removed Zelaya from office by a 15-0 vote, a court dominated by his own party. The only illegality was the expatriation of Zelaya.

[EFerrari]

108. Bulleria. The pieced together justification came after the fact

of the military coup and Zelaya can't be shown to have expanded anything.

It was illegal from start to finish.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. Considering that even Zelaya's supporter agree with what I said was the timeline...

[EFerrari]

110. No, they don't.

[SuperTrouper]

46. It was a Constitutional coup. Obama is right in saying that a bunch of

hypocrites are screaming to do more about Zelaya's removal and these are the same hypocrites that yelled at us to "get out of Latin Ameirca, gringo". These hypocrites are the Chavistas and the ALBA countries that despise our country and our Presidents, Bush I, CLinton, Bush II, and now are sayingbad things about Obama in quiet corners of their Presidential palaces. Screw them, Obama is doing the correct thing in saying that it was a coup and keeping his distance because Zelaya is a thug who has already received amnesty for the Horcones Massacre in his farm in Honduras.

[EFerrari]

62. The problem is that Obama is not being honest when he avoids

the role the US played and still is playing in the coup. And if you overlook the same, neither are you.

[ronnie624]

113. You are mistaken.

When the "hypocrites" say "get out of Latin Ameirca, gringo", They are demanding that the U.S. government stop waging war against political movements in the sovereign nations of Latin America. Surely, this is not an unreasonable demand.

Progressives - or, as you call them, "hypocrites" - do not advocate for intervention in a manner that would violate the sovereignty of Honduras. We simply expect our government to take the proper moral stance on the issue of the coup d'etat. No real progressive would ever support the use of violence to effect political change. That would be terrorism.

[subsuelo]

60. Facts that should be known about the military coup in Honduras

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20073">posted here (it's a response to an article Micheletti posted to the WSJ a few weeks ago)


- The Supreme Court Arrest Order. You say the Honduran Military was the appropriate agency under Honduran law. The constitution of Honduras does not list the execution of arrest warrents under the description of functions of the Military. That duty falls, under its founding law (on the National Congress website) to the National Police, not the Miltary. Also it was an arrest order, not a trial. Mr. Zelaya has been denied due process under the Honduran constitution. I might also point out that it is illegal under the Honduran Constitution to forcibly exile a citizen of Honduras, as you have done with Mr. Zelaya.

- The Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. Congress was convened in an unusual manner, where not all representatives were notified of the meeting, and in some cases, people unknown to the representatives substituted for them without their permission. Representatives of the UD party were prevented by armed guards from attending the session. Voting was done by a show of hands, not an actual roll call vote. Also, the vote doesn't matter since the Honduran constituion contains no method for the National Congress to remove a sitting president. Congress cannot remove the president. You modified the constituion to make that impossible a few years ago.

- Constitution Article 239. There is no evidence in the form of public statements, printed anywhere, including in the Honduran newspapers that support you, that quotes Mr. Zelaya as ever saying that he was seeking to extend his term of office. In fact, this is entirely your supposition, without any supporting evidence. Therefore article 239 does not apply, unless you can show words and actions that show he tried to extend his term. Might I also point out that you were a signer of a 1985 attempt to call a National Constituent Assembly specifically to extend the term of President Suazo Cordova, and when given a chance to withdraw your support of the bill, you declined.

- Illegal withdrawal of money from the Banco Central of Honduras. These are allegations that remain to be proved; Your prosecutors are hardly impartial sources of information.

- Seizure of the ballots and their source. Mr. Zelaya led a peaceful mob. The Airforce base commander never felt threatened and talked both with Mr. Zelaya, his legal commander, and quite naturally turned the ballots over to him when asked for them. The ballots were printed in Venezuela, but were not shipped by the Venezuelan government.

- Legal succession to president. Elvin Santos, vice president under Mr. Zelaya, was allowed to resign as Vice President. The process was unconstituional, as you know. Your own human rights commissioner, Mr. Custodio said so. Also, as stated above, Congress cannot remove a President according to the Honduran Constituion, so any succession authorized by Congress was based on the lie of the legal removal of Mr. Zelaya. Don't take my word for it, study Honduran constitutional scholar's Efrain Moncada Silva's opinion.

- expulsion of Mr. Zelaya from Honduras. Everyone, including military's chief lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, agrees this was an illegal act, and your fear of mobs does not justify violating the constitution you claim to be supporting. Forcing Mr. Zelaya into exile was a violation of your constitution, an illegal act, in which you participated.

[stranger81]

122. which is why your posts on this subject cite to actual Honduran law --

oh wait -- they don't.

You're making up your own "facts" as you go.

[AlphaCentauri]

28. The Honduran constitution says that the president can't be removed

by the military

[struggle4progress]

41. First, the Constitution makes no provision for the removal of the Honduran president as occurred

earlier this year; it does, however, forbid deporting citizens, in the manner Zelaya was deported. Second, you claim Zelaya violated the law -- but he has not been found guilty of that in any open trial; the usual "evidence" that Zelaya "violated" the law is based on rightwing misrepresentations of a nonbinding and unspecific referendum, which the rightwinger hallucination converts into a binding referendum on a specific issue, that the actual nonbinding referendum does not even mention. Finally, if this were an ordinary orderly transition, why shut down the press and limit international travel -- and why are the old death-squad players suddenly showing up again?

[Armchair QB]

45. That's why I'm asking for information

I've seen where the president put forth a proposal for a referendum, the courts struck it down. The president then ordered the military to distribute ballots in violation of the court order, fired the head of the miltiary who refused to violated the court order.
The Courts, ordered the president arrested, the legislature agreed.

If there is more to the story, I'd like to see it

[struggle4progress]

52. The coup has been extensively discussed in the Latin American forum, from day one. If you

need to read more, you can find a large number of threads there. The lies have been constant from the beginning: the original (nonsense) justification for the coup was that Nicaraguan and Venezuelan troops had invaded Honduras, with the blessing of Zelaya, and that the Honduran military had stepped in to save the country from this (nonexistent) swarm of foreign Marxists, whom the Honduran military was valiantly driving back to the frontiers

[Armchair QB]

53. I hadn't seen that. I will go look in those forums

[EFerrari]

66. I forgot about that. That was hilarious.

We even had a few trolls here that weekend saying the same thing.

[Judi Lynn]

72. That was a time sensitive lie: it wasn't long until we ALL knew they were lying about it.

Ordinarily it takes longer for EVERYONE to get the goods on pathelogical political liars.

[EFerrari]

67. Even in the description you give, which is an accurate accounting

of the right wing's story, notice: the military doesn't work for the court. They work for the executive. It's illegal for them to disobey his orders. They are not at the disposal of the Supreme Court.

What you see in an action like this is one of most notoriously corrupt courts in Latin American usurping the executive's role in order to satisfy their owners, ie, Chiquita, Dole and the ten families that control Honduras.

[Judi Lynn]

47. Billy Joya, whom Spain wants for extradition, was chosen by Micheletti to head security,

and everyone knows he was the head of the notorious Batallion 316, a true rabid killer.

[Peace Patriot]

117. "The president violated the law"??

First of all, he didn't. They invented the charge that he advocated lifting his own term limit after the fact--after he had been kidnapped at gunpoint and flown out of the country. Furthermore, the referendum that he proposed for a vote of the people said absolutely nothing about term limits. Nothing!

See
Honduran Coup Decree Shows Coup "Justification" Was After the Fact
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20910

See
http://www.borev.net/2009/06/national_news_outlets_bring_th.html
(the text of the referendum that he proposed...)
"Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

I've actually bookmarked this resolution permanently in my web program, because so many people get it wrong--including every corpo/fascist 'news' source (a matter that BoRev gets into).

How you can defend President Zelaya's removal from the country at gunpoint as somehow "legal" I don't know. Nor are you paying attention to what it means when a group of people do such a thing, then declare martial law, start beating up and arresting reporters and placing troops around TV/radio stations, and start killing protestors. (It means it's a coup!)

But say you're right. Say the president did something illegal. What is the proper procedure in any country governed by the "rule of law" in such a situation? You put the president on trial. Here, nobody can arrest a president. He has first to be impeached by Congress, convicted and removed from office. But apparently they don't have an impeachment provision in the Honduran Constitution (which was written under the influence of John "death squad" Negroponte, and other Reagan henchmen, by the way). What else can you do? You hold a trial, state the accusations, prove the accusations, and permit the president to defend himself. Did the COUP in Honduras do this? No, they shot up his house and kidnapped him--and, when he twice tried to return to Honduras, under threat of arrest, they prevented his return. They don't want to try him, because their charges are bogus.. And I don't care how many Supreme Court justices say otherwise. They lost their case--a case they never brought, except in the media--when they dragged him from his bed at gunpoint and flew him out of the country.

Virtually every country on earth has condemned these actions, and demanded that Zelaya be returned to his elected position as President of Honduras. The current government has no legitimacy. And you really have to wonder, considering that the ten families who run Honduras own the Supreme Court, why they didn't just hold a kangaroo trial, let him defend himself, convict him, imprison him and throw away the key. Answer: It was a coup! They wanted to overrule the will of the people in a legitimate election. You think these people care about illegality by the rich? Give me a break.

[EFerrari]

58. There's an even more basic problem with the so called SC blocking

the survey.

They had no legit grounds to prevent the people from voting on the issue.

Either Honduras has a democracy or it doesn't. When the court attempted to block that vote, they came down on the side of "it doeson't".

[yodermon]

13. here is the operative part of the constitution:

Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

(from http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html )

I see why many of us have problems with this:

1) This clause inherently violates free speech. This clause would immediately and obviously violate the 1st amendment if attempted in the US. Clearly Honduras does not have a First-Amendment level of freedom of speech. (nor do many other countries, nothing new here really)

2) the penalty is listed in passive voice: "will immediately cease .. well be unable to hold"... well not exactly passive voice I guess but it does not specify *how* the person is to 'cease in their functions' or importantly, who is to enforce it.

Apparently the Honduran Supreme Court and Legislature chose to enforce it.... by means of a coup d’état. Fine! If the laws of the land were created with such poor foresight as to not specify the legal mechanism by which a President in violation of Article 239 is to be deposed, the a coup is perfectly "logical."

It doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to approve of this method.

[Armchair QB]

17. Good explanation, thanks

f

[jody]

21. Using the author's logic Nixon's resignation was a coup d’état as well as Kennedy's assassination.

[Armchair QB]

25. Only if this were Honduras

let's not confuse the two countries

[jody]

29. I stand corrected. n/t

[stranger81]

123. JFK's assassination most certainly WAS a coup d'etat. [n/t]

[timeforpeace]

38. That was the most eloquent and valid criticism of the event that I've seen thus far on DU.

[Duende azul]

83. With that comment your lack of knowledge shows. Or your agenda.

As the post you praise so much is totally besides the point.

Show me where Zelaya tried to extend his term.
You can't? So please don't repeat the same falsehood over and over.

btw: I would be very grateful if you'd consider changing your avatar. I only can imagine, but probably the poor guy wouldn't approve your propaganda. So it's kind of insulting.
And while you are at it, do you think your nick is appropriate? Time for peace? What kind of peace do you have in mind? Peace brought by deathsquads? Please elaborate.

[subsuelo]

70. The Honduran Coup Decree never mentioned Article 239

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/honduran-coup-decree-show_b_255600.html">Article 239 has merely been used as "justification" after the fact

And, as one commenter noted (quoted below), The Supreme Court document never mentioned Article 239 either.

Supporters in the U.S. of the coup in Honduras have frequently made two claims to justify it which are demonstrably false, which have nonetheless been widely accepted in the U.S., because they have been largely unchallenged in the U.S. media: the Honduran Congress authorized Zelaya's removal, and the basis for that removal was Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids someone from being President if he has already been President, and says that anyone who advocates changing this provision will cease to be President.

The actual decree of the Honduran Congress is attached. Note the following.

1) the document never mentions Article 239.
2) the document is dated "MIERCOLES 1 DE JULIO DEL 2009," i.e. Wednesday, July 1, 2009, three days after the coup on Sunday, June 28.

So: 1) the decree of the Honduran Congress, which is being cited as justification for it, was produced when the coup was already three days old, and 2) this decree never mentioned Article 239.

Note that President Zelaya didn't advocate the extension of his term, contrary to the claim that is often made in the U.S. He proposed a nonbinding referendum on whether there should be a constitutional convention, a longstanding demand of social movements in Honduras. Even had the nonbinding referendum been successful, there is no plausible scenario in which it would have led to a change in this provision of the constitution prior to the scheduled November election in which Zelaya was to be replaced and in which he was not a candidate. At most it could have resulted in a binding referendum for a constitutional referendum on the same November ballot on which Zelaya would have been replaced. So the claim that President Zelaya was "trying to extend his term" is not only false, but logically impossible.

Comment:

The Supreme Court document (86pages, published on July 25th) never once mentioned Article 239 either. They mentioned all kinds of other possible violations, but they would have all required a trial. This invocation of Article 239 was an after-the-fact justification because the coup plotters realized they needed something easy to explain to the world to explain the kidnapping and transfer of power.

In fact the Supreme Court only ordered the detention of President Zelaya, supposedly because he was a flight risk. They never said one word about taking him out of the country or removing him from the Presidency. This was 100% illegal action taken by the Honduran military. The Honduran Constitution says removing someone from the country against his will is illegal, pure and simple.

The truth is that the Honduran institutions did not want a trial of Zelaya because they knew their charges were complete BS. The legal mumbo jumbo was only a way to allow the coup to occur under some semblance of legality. But the way the coupsters have had to change their justification to Article 239 shows how poor of a job they did.

[yodermon]

112. Thanks for this info. I was not aware of this when I posted.

and even notwithstanding this, the simple fact that there was no due process at all (no indictment, no hearings, not trial, no nothing) makes it a de facto coup. Just because 2 branches of the gov't act as judge jury & executioner in one fell swoop doesn't make it valid, at least in terms of international recognition.

[EFerrari]

85. The survey did not mention extending term limits

and the whole process was physically impossible to accomplish before Zelaya left office.

The argument is bulleria forwarded by criminals.

[bitchkitty]

20. Deliberate stupidity is never attractive. n/t

[Armchair QB]

23. If that's all you've got, why respond?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4009097&mesg_id=4009132

[bitchkitty]

26. Why would I try to argue with someone who,

despite all that has been posted on this site, all the links, evidence, and knowledge that can be found on this issue, still parrots right wing bullshit?

I repeat, it's just not attractive.

[Armchair QB]

36. Who said I wanted to argue, I asked for information that would refute the facts

as I know them. In fact, I've been given 2 links in this thread that corroborate what I've seen, all you've offered is name calling.

if you can't be helpful, shut up

[bitchkitty]

61. Information to refute the facts?

If they're facts, why do you need to refute them?

I don't think we have the same definition of the word.

And no, I won't shut up.

[Armchair QB]

115. read past the subject line, idiot, the thought continued

the facts AS I KNOW THEM.
so shut the fuck up, if you have nothing to contribute and can't follow a simple statement.

[bitchkitty]

130. So civil of you.

The facts as YOU know them, in spite of a multitude of information that shows otherwise.

Which brings us back to my original statement about deliberate stupidity.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bitchkitty]

136. I see your true colors and so does everyone else. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

137. Too bad he won't be around to see these great photos showing how Honduras LOVES its coup:

http://blog.cleveland.com.nyud.net:8090/world_impact/2009/07/large_defacing-banner-of-roberto-micheletti-070409.jpg

http://cache.boston.com.nyud.net:8090/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/07/04/1246748212_2197/539w.jpg

http://www.irishtimes.com.nyud.net:8090/newspaper/breaking/images/2009/0629/233173_1.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/0bvcb6Lbco1Uh/294x220.jpg http://www.huffingtonpost.com.nyud.net:8090/huff-wires/20090630/lt-honduras-coup/images/af367ffb-23cb-4746-856f-ce75cadaf6f2.jpg

http://bleedingheartshow.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2009/07/6110x.jpg http://images.smh.com.au.nyud.net:8090/2009/07/05/618369/420honduras-420x0.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/media/images/46015000/jpg/_46015313_007605251-1.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/7/6/1246865648854/Zelaya-supporters-cheer-h-001.jpg

Crowds waiting for Zelaya's airplane several Sundays ago.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com.nyud.net:8090/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/08/12/PH2009081203636.jpg

Last photo contributed by DUer Downwinder shows some happy Hondurans running to thank the Senate Vice President, Ramon Velasquez, who later boasted to other coup leaders that when he was kicked and beaten he didn't even get hurt! Clearly he didn't know someone got a photo of this terrible beating he took, or he might have never mentioned it standing around in a quiet Senate with the other coup leaders, peeking out the windows at the protesters.

[bitchkitty]

138. I love that last pic! LOL

Right in the ass!

Is it just me, or does Pinochetti look like Cheney?

[Judi Lynn]

139. Yes, he does. He acts like him, probably smells the same, too.

http://venezuelanoticia.com.nyud.net:8090/ http://www.alertnet.org.nyud.net:8090/thefacts/imagerepository/RTRPICT/2009-07-12T235407Z_01_HNR16_RTRIDSP_2_HONDURAS-MICHELETTI_articleimage.jpg http://wellsy.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2009/07/micheletti.jpg
What a crazy world, to allow criminals like this to worm their way into the seats of power and darken the lives of their betters.

[harmonicon]

126. was it not a coup when Bush II was installed by the supreme court?

[dysfunctional press]

141. in 2000, the U.S had a coup that was backed up by the supreme court...

so- it's possible.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Okay, next question: WHEN is it going to be legally designated as a coup,

which triggers mandatory economic sanctions to shut down the coup?

I'm afraid that President Obama is playing fast and loose with the word "hypocrisy" here. Honduras is a U.S. client state, with a substantial U.S. military base, multi-millions in U.S. taxpayer funding of the Honduran military (also multi-millions in USAID-NED money--also our tax dollars--funneled through John McCain's "International Republican Institute" to the rightwing groups in Honduras), and an economy that is almost entirely dependent on trade with the U.S. (--and bad trade it is, too, for the most part--slave labor in clothing sweatshops and on Chiquita International's ag lands). Furthermore, Honduras has a long history of being used as a "lily pad" country for U.S. aggression in the region. Neighboring countries (all three with newly elected leftist governments--El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua) and all of Latin America, but most especially Venezuela and Ecuador (U.S. demonized oil targets) have reason to be very alarmed at the violent rightwing coup in a U.S. client state. If the U.S. cannot maintain democracy in a country that it almost entirely controls, what is Latin America to make of Obama's promises of peace, respect and cooperation?

Then there is the recently announced establishment of seven more U.S. military bases in Colombia--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth (and, not unimportantly, a country with borders on Venezuela's and Ecuador's main oil reserves and facilities). Hypocrisy, they name is the U.S. 'military-industrial complex."

Please, President Obama, stop lecturing Latin America about "hypocrisy" and start proving that you are sincere as to peace, respect and cooperation, and that you are actually in control of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. Because a whole lot of people--including me--are beginning to wonder about both.

[Duende azul]

90. Additional question: why did it take him so long to call a coup a coup?

It's disgusting.
And his hypocrisy strawman cuts both ways. So, no meaningful sanctions on the coupsters? But maintain sanctions and embargoes actually in place against other countries?
Oh I forgot, Obama is playing chess. Maybe he is trying to end them all. First he makes the rightwing agree on the hypocrisy thing and then they have to be on boat for lifting for example the embargo against Cuba? Because, as we all know, there is nothing the rightwing abhors more than hypocrisy.

regarding the Colombia bases: can you imagine the apeshit crazy DU would go, if Bush would have done it?

[AlphaCentauri]

7. Where is that book: Open Veins of Latin America

[jody]

10. The peaceful ouster was not a coup but a lawful process under Honduran law. n/t

[Downwinder]

14. Better known as a rendition.

[jody]

16. Not a rendition ala U.S. Presidents, see # 3 up-thread. n/t

[Downwinder]

22. Quote chapter and verse allowing deportation.

[jody]

24. LOL have a blissful day. n/t

[Downwinder]

57. Here I'll do it for you.

Book: Rupert Murdoch
Chapter: Wall Street Journal
Verse: Mary O'Grady

[Peace Patriot]

116. LOL, Downwinder! I like your mind! nt

[timeforpeace]

15. What's your thought on Obama's statement above?

[jody]

18. Conjecture: twisting like a weather vane with winds from several directions. n/t

[timeforpeace]

30. Interesting venue in which to do it. Mexico doesn't give a rip about Zelaya. What is Obama's next

stop or is the trip just to Mexico? Sounds like he's saying what he think someone specific wants to hear before he arrives there.

[jody]

35. Don't know but I've known experienced politicians who mastered the art of saying what people

want to hear but in such a way as to be evaded in subsequent appearances.

[timeforpeace]

49. Maybe he's heading to Venezuela. Don't know the itinerary, or if he's just going to Mexico.I'm going

to Honduras next month, scuba diving off Roatan, and hope to be able to report back with man-on-the-street views of the situation.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

44. The Honduran constitution actually explicitly forbids deportation -- so sadly, no, it was not lawful

[jody]

54. So everything was legal except the deportation. Thanks for clarifying that point. n/t

[EFerrari]

59. The poster didn't say that. But nice try.

[struggle4progress]

64. Lessee. It began with lies that the Honduran military was furiously fighting back a (nonexistent)

wave of foreign invaders from Nicaragua and Venezuela. It continued with the illegal deportation of the President. And that was followed by a crackdown on the press and limitations on travel. The only natural conclusion is: something is rotten

[jody]

65. So do you mean that Honduras's Supreme Court was not involved? n/t

[EFerrari]

69. There were no sightings of those judges patrolling the borders.

lol

[Judi Lynn]

19. Fact Checking Lanny Davis on Honduras

Posted: August 10, 2009 04:05 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Fact Checking Lanny Davis on Honduras

~snip~
As Hillary Clinton's major fundraiser during last year's presidential primary, Davis is known for, among other things, leading the attack on Barack Obama for his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. "Why didn't he speak up earlier?" Davis asked in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, demanding to know why the candidate didn't distance himself from Wright's remarks. Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."

Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf.

Now Lanny Davis finds himself defending another de facto regime in Honduras that is engaging "grave and systemic" political repression, suspending due process, harassing independent journalists, killing or disappearing at least ten people, and detaining hundreds as "constitutional," all the while touting himself as a (Honduran) constitutional expert.

The Honduran coup occurred on June 28, when soldiers, working on behalf of a small group of business and political elite who control the country, kidnapped democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya and sent him into exile. Since then, the military-backed de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti has tried to argue to the world that it was acting constitutionally, even though nearly every country in Latin America, along with the European Union, isn't buying it. Only in the US is there a debate as to whether Micheletti government is legal or not -- largely thanks to the lobbying efforts of Lanny Davis.

Davis's argument is based on a disingenuous description of the legal and political maneuvers by Zelaya's opponents in the Supreme Court and Congress prior to the coup. He calls these power grabs constitutional.

Never mind that several clear violations of Honduras' constitution were carried out on June 28th, including the detention of president Zelaya by the armed forces (violation of articles 293 and 272), his forced deportation to another country (violation of art. 102) and Congress' decision to destitute the president (this is not within Congress' constitutional attributions).

But the best response to this position - in addition to pointing out that Davis' description of events is so selective as to be false (see below for details) - is that throughout Latin America's long history of coups, those who executed them usually counted on legal and political backing. Pinochet in Chile, for example, had both.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-grandin/fact-checking-lanny-davis_b_255900.html

[RedCloud]

34. Your argument is powerfully persuasive.

I, for one, do not align with lobbyists or those who seek to run roughshod over the downtrodden.

From the US perspective this looks like a coup. Our President is shooting straight from the hip.

[Judi Lynn]

42. Honduran Coup Decree Shows Coup "Justification" Was After the Fact

Posted: August 10, 2009 12:09 PM
Honduran Coup Decree Shows Coup "Justification" Was After the Fact

Supporters in the U.S. of the coup in Honduras have frequently made two claims to justify it which are demonstrably false, which have nonetheless been widely accepted in the U.S., because they have been largely unchallenged in the U.S. media: the Honduran Congress authorized Zelaya's removal, and the basis for that removal was Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids someone from being President if he has already been President, and says that anyone who advocates changing this provision will cease to be President.

The actual decree of the Honduran Congress is attached. Note the following.

1) the document never mentions Article 239.

2) the document is dated "MIERCOLES 1 DE JULIO DEL 2009," i.e. Wednesday, July 1, 2009, three days after the coup on Sunday, June 28.

So: 1) the decree of the Honduran Congress, which is being cited as justification for it, was produced when the coup was already three days old, and 2) this decree never mentioned Article 239.

Note that President Zelaya didn't advocate the extension of his term, contrary to the claim that is often made in the U.S. He proposed a nonbinding referendum on whether there should be a constitutional convention, a longstanding demand of social movements in Honduras. Even had the nonbinding referendum been successful, there is no plausible scenario in which it would have led to a change in this provision of the constitution prior to the scheduled November election in which Zelaya was to be replaced and in which he was not a candidate. At most it could have resulted in a binding referendum for a constitutional referendum on the same November ballot on which Zelaya would have been replaced. So the claim that President Zelaya was "trying to extend his term" is not only false, but logically impossible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/honduran-coup-decree-show_b_255600.html

[fascisthunter]

50. It Most Certainly was a COUP... a military one at that

[bemildred]

68. President Obama has a sound point, it has occurred to me too.

However, that point is undercut by the new, or upgraded if you prefer, bases we are constructing in Colombia. If one is really to argue that we ought to stop meddling in Latin America, then that certainly applies to other places than Honduras.

[EFerrari]

71. Obama overlooks the millions in NED $ to the right wing,

money from the Republicans, ongoing training at SOA, and the funds he has yet to cut. Oh, and the Clinton PR apparatus representing the coup plus our old Iran Contra friends shacked up at Covington who represent Chiquita.

We are already meddling in Honduras and I'm sure he knows that.

[bemildred]

74. I'm just saying he has a logical argument.

I'm not supporting it, I pointed out a flaw in it, which is akin to what you say, that if we are not to meddle, than it has to be applied as a general rule, not just to this case.

[EFerrari]

76. I usually agree with you but can't in this case. His argument is based upon

the false premise "We are not meddling in Honduras and it would be hypocritical for us to meddle on Zelaya's behalf".

/oops

[bemildred]

77. We don't seem to be communicating.

I hope this is not a permanent change.

[EFerrari]

78. Sorry, I'll go read your post again. n/t

[bemildred]

79. No problem.

I don't get mad anymore. I'm suggesting we ought to take President Obama's logic and run with it, it has a lot of possibilities. He is admitting as a premise that we ought not meddle in Latin America. That has possibilities.

[Downwinder]

80. We would be upset if they meddled here.

I don't understand why foreign governments have lobbyists. Isn't that what an Ambassador is for, along with diplomatic matters?

[bemildred]

81. It ought not be allowed.

But corruption is endemic in our Congress and we are so used to allowing our government to be bought and sold that we fail to notice it unless the effects are egregious, sometimes not even then.

The notion that we have a right to meddle as we choose in Latin America is the "Monroe Doctrine", and it is a couple of hundred years old. That a sitting President would make a statement that contradicts that even as a rhetorical point deserves notice in my view.

When you take that together with the UNASUR statement today that no election held under the de facto regime in Honduras will be recognized, it's fair to say that this is not business as usual, but I don't want to get too optimistic yet.

[EFerrari]

84. Latin America has its stuff together more today than I've ever seen it:

It would be nice to see Washington on board with that development and drawing down the fiasco in Colombia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20898#20900

[bemildred]

87. Agreed.

The best thing we can do is let political reform happen. Even the "elites" will be better off if they let reform happen. They can have the French Revolution or they can be reasonable. They will keep more of their winnings if they allow change to happen. We will be better off if we let reform happen. The US is not in a position to dictate anymore, and we did it to ourselves, and they can deal with it or they can continue to lose. We do still have a lot of influence, if we use it well. But being intransigent will be expensive and will not get much.

What they are doing in Colombia is a complete waste of time, knee-jerk reaction to "affronts".

[Zorra]

73. Michelliti and his fascist thugs are terrorists, and should be treated as terrorists

by our government.

[EFerrari]

75. The very first week, SOA Watch reported active death squads.

Yes, they are terrorists. You're exactly right.

[Judi Lynn]

82. Who's Behind the Coup in Honduras

~snip~
The importance of cellular communications
in coup resistance was underscored when Zelaya spent his July excursion into Honduran territory talking on his mobile before retreating back to Nicaragua. Resistance operations in Olancho have meanwhile included sending anonymous text messages encouraging support for legitimate governments and making mobile phone videos of impediments to travel in Honduras, such as the military shooting of school bus tires in the town of Limones. The bus had been transporting persons opposed to the coup to Tegucigalpa; a text message depicting a school bus full of abracitos y besitos might endow the Honduran armed forces with a more sentimental outlook vis-à-vis civilian vehicles.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman enthusiastically endorsed the role of technology in secular revolutions in an article dated June 16, in which he reviewed the opportunities that Facebook and text messaging provide for revolutionary mobilization “outside the grip of the state.” Friedman nonetheless cautioned that “guns trump cellphones,” a trumping the US State Department is less likely to condemn when it occurs in non-Islamic states such as Zelaya’s bedroom, where he was told to drop his mobile phone or be shot on the morning of June 28.

~snip~
Millennium Challenge Corp. poured millions into Honduras
Bill Conroy

The coup d'état that rocked Honduras in late June and removed democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from office, sending him into exile in Costa Rica, was preceded by a multi-million dollar build-up of foreign aid from a U.S. agency that includes on its board of directors the president of the International Republican Institute as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That taxpayer-funded agency, called the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), oversees a multi-billion dollar foreign-aid fund called the Millennium Challenge Account. It was established in 2004 under the Bush administration as means of combating terrorism by funding development in poor nations under a strict neo-conservative free-trade model.

A review of publicly available financial records reveals that between April 1 and July 31 of this year, nearly $17 million in aid was disbursed to Honduras through the MCC program. That money flowed into Honduras after President Zelaya called for a national referendum in March to decide whether a ballot question should be included in that nation’s November 2009 general elections — which would have asked voters to decide if a national assembly should be convened to amend the Honduran constitution.

More:
http://agonist.org/nat_wilson_turner/20090810/whos_behind_the_coup_in_honduras

[Joe Chi Minh]

86. That seems extraordinarily disingenuous of Obama. In the past, the US always protected

the puppets of the oligarch families (and more importantly, the CIA's puppets), the parasitic, apex predators squeezing the life-blood out of the poor, the destitute masses.

In the case of Uruguay, what is being asked is that the US should do what the Catholic Church has been doing recently: standing up for democracy and the oppressed poor, at the very highest level; whereas in the past, bishops would be taking cocktails with the ultra-corrupt despot, Somosa, for instance, while the missionaries and lay-people on the ground and would be fighting for the poor at the risk of their lives. Shame on you, Barak conflating the two.

On the other hand, with the cleaning-up of the electoral process in the US proceeding at such a snail's pace, perhaps it's a tall order.

[EFerrari]

89. When it comes to Latin America, Obama walked into a nest of vipers

in our own government, at the Pentagon and at State. And Clinton's ties are all to the right wing there. So, I'm not very surprised to hear him claim by implication that his hands are clean.

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. I just wish he were more of a prophetic fire-brand than a "Machiavelli on the side

of the angels", playing "the long game", if indeed, that is what he is. And he does seem a good man to be in such a high office.

[EFerrari]

92. His Latin America policy is very nice when it comes from him

and something else when it comes from his immediate subordinates and the disbursements they make.

:shrug:

[Joe Chi Minh]

119. That sounds more than likely. And I doubt if it's a deliberate "Mutt and Jeff" thing.

With Blair it was different. He used to like to talk in riddles in a really plaintive, pitiful tone of voice, as though appealing to our higher nature, e.g. "We have to help these single mothers. We must cut their benefits....."!!!!

[EFerrari]

121. I watched his remarks on Amy's show this morning.

They occur at about 22:35. They were bizarre. He said his critics were hypocritical for wanting the US to intervene but, no one is asking the US to intervene. The US is being asked to enforce our own laws and cut off funding and training to the coup. That's not intervention.

I was very disappointed in both his attitude and in his remarks themselves.

[Joe Chi Minh]

124. Doesn't sound good, does it? I mean, disingenuously dissembling, making

no distinction between fascism and democracy re a justified US intervention. Particularly justified, since it is the US, itself, that held back the development of democracy and progress in Latin America for so long in the past, in favour of "The beasts of the earth".

[EFerrari]

125. On top of that, name calling. Paired with his denial of the plans

for the new bases in Colombia which directly contradicted his National Security Adviser, :shrug:

What is happening here? It's like an invitation to restart the Cold War in Latin America. Is that what we really want to do? :shrug:

[brentspeak]

88. Thank you, President Obama

You are correct on this.

[SpartanDem]

93. Obama Knocks "Hypocrisy" of Honduras Critics

Source: CBS

dupe

No link yet.

[EFerrari]

94. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4009097&mesg_id=4009097

[timeforpeace]

95. C'mon over, set a spell.

[Kahoneez]

96. OBAMA'S DISINGENUOUS REMARKS ARE OBVIOUS

He claims the " same people who want the U.S. to stop interfering , want me to do something in Honduras " .


A . He knows damn we'll what type of " interference " they are speaking of , you now , like supporting the military dictatorships of Guatemala, El Salvador and previous Honduran governments , that kidnapped , raped and tortured HUNDREDS of thousands , especially during REAGAN'S reign of terror during the 80s , and torture victims are on record " gringos " were present during torture , i.e. CIA torture manuals also surfaced .

B. Who would object to helping Zelaya to regain his rightful position as president of Honduras and by conflating the positions , he shows how disingenuous he really is .

There's a BIG difference in helping a democratically elected president and waging war on small countries for the business cabal , like Chiquita Banana .

[Judi Lynn]

97. Odd isn't it, the same company, then United Fruit, with Eisenhower's CIA head, and Sec. of State

intimately involved, overthrew and destroyed Guatemala's popular President Arbenz, and has been controlling governments in Latin America from that day forward:

Killing Hope
by William Blum


*****
To whom does a poor banana republic turn when a CIA army is advancing upon its territory and CIA planes are overhead bombing the country?
The leaders of Guatemala tried everyone-the United Nations, the Organization of American States, other countries individually, the world press, even the United States itself, in the desperate hope that it was all a big misunderstanding, that in the end, reason would prevail.
Nothing helped. Dwight Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles had decided that the legally-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz was "communist", therefore must go and go it did, in June 1954.
In the midst of the American preparation to overthrow the government, the Guatemalan Foreign Minister, Guillermo Toriello, lamented that the United States was categorizing "as 'communism' every manifestation of nationalism or economic independence any desire for social progress, any intellectual curiosity, and any interest in progressive liberal reforms."
*****
The Guatemalan president (Arbenz) , who took office in March 1951 after being elected by a wide margin, had no special contact or spiritual/ideological ties with the Soviet Union or the rest of the Communist bloc. Although American policymakers and the American press, explicitly and implicitly, often labeled Arbenz a communist, there were those in Washington who knew better, at least during their more dispassionate moments. Under Arbenz's administration Guatemala had voted at the United Nations so closely with the United States on issues of "Soviet imperialism" that a State Department group occupied with planning Arbenz's overthrow concluded that propaganda concerning Guatemala's UN record "would not be particularly helpful in our case". And a State Department analysis paper reported that the Guatemalan president had support "not only from Communist-led labor and the radical fringe of professional and intellectual groups, but also among many anti-Communist nationalists in urban areas".

~snip~
United Fruit functioned in Guatemala as a state within a state. It owned the country's telephone and telegraph facilities, administered its only important Atlantic harbor, and monopolized its banana exports. A subsidiary of the company owned nearly every mile of railroad track in the country. The fruit company's influence amongst Washington's power elite was equally impressive. On a business and/or personal level, it had close ties to the Dulles brothers, various State Department officials, congressmen, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and others. Anne Whitman, the wife of the company's public relations director, was President Eisenhower's personal secretary. Under-secretary of State (and formerly Director of the CIA) Walter Bedell Smith was seeking an executive position with United Fruit at the same time he was helping to plan the coup. He was later named to the company's board of directors.
Under Arbenz, Guatemala constructed an Atlantic port and a highway to compete with United Fruit's holdings, and built a hydro-electric plant to offer cheaper energy than the US controlled electricity monopoly. Arbenz's strategy was to limit the power of foreign companies through direct competition rather than through nationalization, a policy not feasible of course when it came to a fixed quantity like land. In his inaugural address, Arbenz stated that:

"Foreign capital will always be welcome as long as it adjusts to local conditions, remains always subordinate to Guatemalan laws, cooperates with the economic development of the country, and strictly abstains from intervening in the nation's social and political life."

More:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Guatemala_KH.html

[EFerrari]

107. His Pentagon is STILL TRAINING Honduran military TODAY at SOA

in contravention of US law.

So, I have the choice of believing he doesn't know what he's talking about or that he isn't being honest.

[deep1]

114. Who cares?

We shouldn't be meddling into other people's business. I wish they would have done a coup for you know who..........but Americans won't do that...........

[Peace Patriot]

118. It's not so easy to wash your hands of a client state of the U.S. like Honduras.

Our tax dollars are funding the Honduran military and Honduran rightwing groups ($43 million funneled to them through John McCain's U.S. taxpayer-funded "International Republican Institute" alone), and their economy is almost entirely dependent on U.S. trade (--mostly bad, Chiquita Banana-type "free trade"). Nothing like this could happen in Honduras without the okay from powerful forces here including the Pentagon.

It IS our business. We're paying for it. Of course we shouldn't be, but we are. And if the U.S. doesn't bother to maintain even the illusion of democracy in Honduras, then something's gone very wrong with the Obama administration, which promised a policy of peace, respect and cooperation in Latin America. I'm going to say it. I'm hesitating, because I'm clinging to the hope that Obama has good intentions, overall, that he's one of the good guys. But I'm getting tired of this feckless attitude of his on Latin America, that a violent, rightwing, military coup in Honduras is just something that happens, and can't really be helped. Slap their hands; hope for the best. And the same for the seven new U.S. military bases in Colombia (which just happens to have borders with Venezuela's and Ecuador's main oil provinces--a substance, oil, for which our 'military-industrial' complex just slaughtered a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis in one week of bombing alone). Oh, it's something we have to do for the "war on drugs," blah, blah, blah. Anybody who believes that is a fool. What I'm seeing is that our Latin American policy may be entirely out of Obama's hands, perhaps due to some deal he made with the DLC/Clinton, or due to an insurrection that has occurred, with Bushwhack moles in the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Dept (esp. the Bushwhack ambassadors still in place in Latin America) and McCain. Obama says he can't do anything about Honduras. Maybe that's true. Maybe he's the prisoner of rightwing, corpo/fascist, warmongers.

The U.S. policy now, apparently, is to let this rightwing coup in Honduras run an election! With over a thousand leftist political activists in jail, and some of them dead, and others in hiding. With martial law. With home invasions. With troops in the streets. With the media mostly shut down. With purges of those who support the legitimate government going on in government agencies. With OAS diplomats being barred from entering the country. How can a fair and honest election possibly occur in these circumstances? What international election monitoring group, with any self-respect and integrity, will or can monitor this election? How can leftist candidates or candidates who oppose the current regime possibly mount a campaign? How can people feel safe advocating for them, voting for them?

It is bullshit that this is all going to be solved by the election! But that is what seems to be the object of U.S. policy--to get some kind of cosmetic bandaid to put on permanent oligarchic rule in Honduras. The election of real representatives of the people is not possible in these circumstances. But I can see the State Dept. press releases now, hailing "democracy" in Honduras, after the coupsters 'elect' themselves, by bullying, threatening, jailing, shooting at, purging, banning, exiling and lying about everyone who opposes them.

[natrat]

133. obama is a puppet for our junta, just some freak spokesperson who can lie with the best of them

[harmonicon]

128. I care.

Me - US passport holder, world citizen, defender of democracy. I don't live in the US. Should I not care if Obama were kidnapped and deposed by the right-wing?

[Xicano]

120. I am sure Obama had foreknowledge

I find it difficult to believe that Obama wouldn't have had foreknowledge of this coup because of the relationship between Latin America and the U.S. I find it difficult to believe that any would be coup leader would attempt a coup in Latin America without assurances the U.S. will back them, or, at the very least not use its power to eliminate the coup.

Therefore I believe the President at the very least had foreknowledge and maybe even some degree of complicity.

[Umbral]

129. Who says Obama can't spin with the best of them? Not I. nt

[Judi Lynn]

131. Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection

Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection
Written by Conn Hallinan
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Source: Foreign Policy in Focus

While the Obama administration was careful to distance itself from the recent coup in Honduras — condemning the expulsion of President Manuel Zelaya to Costa Rica, revoking Honduran officials' visas, and shutting off aid — that doesn't mean influential Americans aren't involved, and that both sides of the aisle don't have some explaining to do.

The story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup is that Zelaya — an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power.

That story is a massive distortion of the facts. All Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention, a move that trade unions, indigenous groups, and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for. The current constitution was written by the Honduran military in 1982, and the one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country. Since the convention would have been held in November, the same month as the upcoming presidential elections, there was no way Zelaya could have remained in office in any case. The most he could have done was to run four years from now.

And while Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chavez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage. "What Zelaya has done has been little reforms," Rafael Alegria, a leader of Via Campesina, told the Mexican daily La Jornada. "He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously."

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup.

More:
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1639/1/

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

140. Anti-coup protesters charged with sedition

14:59 WORLD: Anti-coup protesters charged with sedition
15/08/09

Two dozen supporters of Honduras’ ousted president were charged with sedition in an intensifying crackdown on protests against the coup-installed government.

Protests to demand the return of ousted President Manuel Zelaya turned violent in the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa this week, with police firing tear gas and demonstrators fighting back with sticks and stones.

Some protesters attacked the vice president of Congress, although he wasn’t injured.

Some 24 demonstrators were charged with sedition and damaging private property, said Melvin Duarte, a spokesman for the federal prosecutor’s office.

Another four were charged with aggravated arson and terrorism in the burning of a bus and a restaurant.

Interim President Roberto Micheletti condemned the clashes as “violent and terrorist” and vowed his government would no longer tolerate street blockades and other disruptions.

More:
http://www.irishnews.com/break.asp?tbrk=brk&par=brk&catid=5834&subcatid=642&storyid=422702

[gorbal]

142. If he broke the law he should be arrested

A leader if forcibly evicted from his country for calling for an election?-The president was right on this one; it was a coup.