I came across this just reading through the comments on the WSJ article written by Micheletti:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html#articleTabs=comments#comment327765Undisputed facts, Mir. Micheletti? I don't think so. Lets look at them one by one.
- 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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
