Zelaya Says Coup Was International Conspiracy

[Judi Lynn]

Zelaya Says Coup Was International Conspiracy
By Thelma Mejía

TEGUCIGALPA, May 30, 2011 (IPS) - After his return to Honduras put an end to two years of exile, former President Manuel Zelaya said the coup in which he was removed on Jun. 28, 2009 was the work of an "international conspiracy" that should be investigated.

In a press conference Sunday, he said General Romeo Vásquez, head of the joint chiefs of staff at the time of the coup, had told him that some of the people plotting his overthrow wanted him killed.

"He told me: some day you will understand what happened. I can't tell you, but the people who planned it discussed having you killed during the assault on your house, but the armed forces were totally opposed to your assassination," said the former president, who returned to a hero's welcome Saturday from the Dominican Republic.

Zelaya said Vásquez told him the coup plotters, angry at the military's refusal to kill him, threatened to hire paramilitaries to do the job. But the armed forces said they would not allow that to happen either, and that they would remove him from his home and take him to Costa Rica.

More:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55843

[Bacchus39]

1. brought it on himself 100%, what a joke n/t

s

[EFerrari]

3. He absolutely brought it on himself by advocating for democracy in Honduras. n/t

[Bacchus39]

7. by ignoring a supreme court and congressional order . the good news is he's gone from power

and Honduras has a new leader. the bad news will be if he decides to run again.

[EFerrari]

13. Orders of doubtful legality.

And it always surprises me how much anti-democratic feeling there is here at DU.

[Bacchus39]

16. who makes the determination of legality in Honduras?

the supreme court, yes???

[Peace Patriot]

5. Now there's an interesting legal theory--the victim is to blame. Classic Bushwhackism.

Related to classic schoolyard bullyism.

Those tens of thousands of innocents slaughtered by U.S. bombs in Iraq were to blame for getting slaughtered, because, a) they have lots of oil, b) they're Arabs; c) Arabs are bad; d) Arabs are weak--didn't overthrow Saddam Hussein. Thus, they "brought it on themselves."

"It" being mass murder of innocent civilians by the U.S., which has no actor or agent; it just happens.

So, tell what the "it" means in your half sentence "brought it on himself, 100%." Murder of Zelaya (subject of the OP)? If those who intended to murder him had succeeded, you're saying they would have been justified, "100%," because, um, he "brought it on himself"? Or do you mean removing an elected president at gunpoint, after shooting up his house, and throwing him out of his own country, in violation of a specific provision of the Honduran constitution that forbids the exile of any Honduran citizen? That's justified--and doesn't have any actors or agents--it just happens--because, well, Zelaya "brought it on himself"?

Is it your theory, then, that, if the elected president of a country enacts policies that some people don't like (f.i., raising the minimum wage), or undertakes foreign policy/trade initiatives that some disapprove of (f.i., joining a barter trade group (ALBA), or allying with Venezuela, which, for instance, Brazil has done) or has a run-in with the military over a ballot initiative that the military doesn't like (f.i., proposing a vote of the people on reforming a constitution that gives the military too much power)--in short, if the elected president of a country offends the "powers that be," miscalculates their hatred of his policies, overestimates the strength of the country's democratic forces to maintain democracy while democratic reform is undertaken, and maybe has a bit of ego, as human beings, and especially politicians and presidents of countries tend to do, and thinks that his political position is stronger than it really is, he "gets what he deserves" if they shoot up his house and remove him from the country at gunpoint?

Democratic legal theory would say that, if certain parties don't like what a president is doing, they either contest it politically, in debate and in elections, or, if they think that what he's doing is illegal, they bring legal action against him--impeachment, censure by the legislature, indictment--all of which are public proceedings, with the president having an opportunity to defend himself. They don't shoot up his house and remove him from the country at gunpoint (with a refueling stop at the U.S. air base in Honduras). They don't have secret debates about whether to kill him and just exile him. They obey the law themselves, against murder, against conspiracy, against violent removal of an elected official, against exile.

He "brought it on himself" removes any actors or agents from the event, except Zelaya. But there WERE other actors and agents of these illegal, unconstitutional, violent actions. THEY are responsible for their illegal, unconstitutional, violent actions, not Zelaya. Rightwing opinion is so crazy sometimes, that the most obvious things must be pointed out. Zeleya did not shoot up his house and remove himself from the country at gunpoint. THEY did--the military generals and "ten families" oligarchs who didn't like his policies. And THEY were aided and abetted by the U.S. military and by rightwing operatives like Jim DeMint (SC-Diebold) and John "death squad" Negroponte, and, ultimately, alas, by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. THESE are the parties responsible for overthrowing Honduran democracy, not Zelaya. He was just doing what presidents do--enacting what he thought were beneficial policies, and acting to consult "the people" in an advisory vote on further reforms. Nothing that HE did was illegal. Even the vote that he proposed--on a general process of reform of the constitution--was an advisory vote only; it would have had no force of law. What's wrong with asking the advice of "the people"?

Well, what's wrong with asking the advice of "the people," apparently, is that their answer might not please the powers-that-be. And what's wrong with raising the minimum wage is that it offended U.S.-based transglobal corporations operating in Honduras. And what's wrong with allying with Venezuela, for instance, is that, according to one of the coup generals, they needed "to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States." Lordy, lordy, us poor stupid dolts here in the U.S. might get some ideas from Venezuela, like honest, transparent vote counting or universal free medical care. THAT's what's wrong with the elected president of Honduras staying in his elected office and implementing policies that he thinks are beneficial. THAT's what requires his removal at gunpoint--keeping the USA as a pristine corporate-run fortress for billionaires, scofflaws and war profiteers!

Maybe you're right after all. Zelaya should have understood all this--that "communism" from Venezuela must not "reach the United States," that transglobal corporations must not be forced to pay decent wages, that votes of the people on reforming their own constitution are just too upsetting to the rich, who can be very dangerous when upset, and, like wild animals, are not responsible for what they do, and, if you get in the path of such wild animals--corporate beasts with deadly teeth and claws, slithering billionaires with poisonous fangs--you have only yourself to blame, "100%."

Corporatism exposed: Wild animals who will rip out your throat if you get in their way. And you "only have yourself to blame" cuz these are not human beings that overthrow governments, and spit on the law, and destroy millions of lives with exploitation and war. They are instead a "force of nature" which cannot be blamed or held accountable for what they do. Thanks for letting us know, inadvertently.

[Bacchus39]

6. I'll just repeat the facts: He was orderd by the Supreme Court and the Congress

not to hold the vote and he was proceeding anyway. case closed. the only questionable aspect was his removal from Honduras, not his removal from power.

[Peace Patriot]

8. "The only questionable aspect"? Shooting up his house, kidnapping him at gunpoint,

putting him on a plane with blackened windows, stopping for refueling at a U.S. airbase and forcing him out of the country?

This was not just "questionable"; it was the means of DEPRIVING HIM OF ANY DEFENSE and of installing an ILLEGITIMATE, UNELECTED coup regime.

It was a CRIME. And it, in addition, violated a specific provision of the constitution forbidding the forced exile of any Honduran citizen--a constitution that these lying, scumbag criminals claimed to revere.

Kidnapping is a CRIME. I believe that the sentence is life imprisonment in the U.S. Not sure what it is in Honduras, but it is a SERIOUS crime.

How is proposing a vote of the people a crime at all, let alone in any way comparable to kidnapping--let alone kidnapping of an ELECTED PRESIDENT?

The proper democratic procedure for removing a president is to hold an impeachment trial, AT WHICH THE PRESIDENT GETS TO DEFEND HIMSELF. They not only kidnapped him at gunpoint, they not only forcibly exiled him, they deprived him of his office and his rights as a citizen BY FIAT. In absentia. He had no chance to defend himself. That's a basic right, or hadn't you heard?

And WHY didn't they do a trial, hm? Because their charges were absurd and they knew it!

But you are obviously not a great believer in the democratic rule of law. In your view, it some rightwingers decide they don't like a president and his policies, they can just throw over the law and do whatever they want.

Tell me this, how would it have harmed them, or Honduras, or the Honduran people, or the rule of law, or democracy, if the ADVISORY vote of the people that Zelaya proposed, at the behest of labor unions and other grass roots groups, had proceeded? It was little more than an opinion poll. 'Do you/don't you want to vote on forming a constituent assembly to reform the constitution?'

How does it hurt anything or anybody to know what the people want, as to voting on some issue? It would have had no force of law. It was merely "do you want to consider this?"

Now, compare that to violent kidnapping and exile of the ELECTED president. Very, VERY harmful--not just to Zelaya and those who voted for him but to Honduras as a nation, which was condemned throughout the world and evicted from the OAS and became a pariah among nations.

These kidnappers and exilers and coupsters ought to be tried for treason, is the truth. They did great harm to their country. Zelaya did NO harm.

And you can pooh-pooh the crime of kidnapping all you want--and I'm going to remember this the next time you condemn the FARC guerrillas for kidnapping people--and you can spit on the rule of law and on democracy all you want, but it does not and cannot mitigate what these criminals did to Honduras. First they tore up the rule of law, then their death squads started killing people. Hundreds of coup protestors, journalists and others have been murdered. Thousands have been beaten, raped, tortured, unjustly imprisoned, threatened, harassed, lost their jobs or businesses. WHO did these harms to Honduras and the Honduran people? Not Zelaya. He just wanted an ADVISORY VOTE on the GENERAL issue of reform. Neither this nor anything he did was harmful. The rightwing didn't agree with him and THEY inflicted great harm trying to ENFORCE their opinions on everybody.

Typical rightwing behavior, these days, I must say. It doesn't surprise me that you defend it.

[Bacchus39]

9. the referendum vote was ruled illegal, and I said his removal from the country was the questionable

action. his removal from power was not. anyway, Honduras has a new president and is moving on. maybe you should.

I would say that ignoring the Supreme Court and Congress with regard to the vote did great harm to Honduras.

it will be up to Honduras how they want to proceed with any wrong doing during Zelaya's ouster. they are responsible for following the rules of their own country.

"...they can just throw over the law and do whatever they want. "

that is exactly what Zelaya did.

Hugo has blessed the political return of Honduras to the region thanks to the efforts of Santos. I would think that would be sufficient for you.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Zelaya's actions involved a political dispute; the coupsters actions were CRIMES.

You don't seem to understand the difference.

You don't solve a political dispute by kidnapping the elected president at gunpoint and exiling him in violation of his constitutional rights, seizing power, overthrowing the democratic system, declaring martial law and then beating up, imprisoning and murdering those who oppose your CRIMES.

You said Zelaya "brought it on himself, 100%." He did not shoot up anybody's house. He did not kidnap anybody. He did not deprive anybody of their human and civil rights. He did not put anybody on a plane out of the country against their will. He did not unjustly imprison anybody. He did not deny anyone a trial and self-defense. He did not overthrow the government and declare martial law. He did not beat up, rape, torture and unjustly imprison those who opposed him. He did not permit the murder of peaceful protestors with impunity. He did nothing even vaguely questionable--let alone unconstitutional--by proposing a vote of the people on constitutional reform. Their charges against him were after-the-fact bullshit. And THEY committed all of these crimes.

Zelaya did not "bring this on himself, 100%." He did not "bring this on himself" AT ALL. Not even 1%.

You are completely mischaracterizing what happened, thus making it incomprehensible WHY Honduras could not be re-admitted to the OAS and to the larger community of nations until Zelaya had safely returned to Honduras, with guarantees of his safety, until the anti-coup coalition was recognized as a legitimate political party and until constitutional reform was agreed to! Constitutional reform WAS NOT A CRIME. It was a LIE that it was--a lie compounded by crime after crime after crime committed against Zelaya and the people of Honduras.

And it is quite typical of the rightwing to characterize rightwing crimes as merely "questionable"--as if kidnapping the president at gunpoint was a political mistake,-- while characterizing leftwing political opinions and actions as crimes. What the rightwing did was not political. It was criminal. What Zelaya and his supporters did was not criminal. It was political. And if there was anything criminal about it, why didn't he and they get charged with that imaginary crime, with the opportunity to defend themselves and prove that it wasn't a crime? It was the rightwing's actions that were indefensible, not Zelaya's. It is they who didn't want any public discussion of the vote proposal controversy, nor of their crimes. They shut down discussion. They declared martial law and suspended all civil rights!

Then they held an "election," under martial law, with the help of the U.S. State Department, using entities like John McCain's "International Republican Institute" (Tea Partyers!) to "monitor" the so-called "election," because no legitimate election monitoring group on earth would touch it. They did this even while anti-coup protestors and other leftists were being murdered.

I am glad that Chavez and Santos negotiated an agreement to peacefully resolve Zelaya's return to the country and to guarantee Hondurans' human, civil and political rights. And I can understand why restoring Zelaya to the presidency, to complete his term of office, and expelling the illegitimately installed Lobo from the presidency, were not included in the agreement. An agreement is a give and take. If one side is overly rigid, no agreement can be made. Obviously, Zelaya sacrificed his own rights for the greater good. But this does NOT mean that the rightwing's crimes should be overlooked! When they can't win a political argument, they will break the law, overthrow the government, suspend all civil rights and start sending their death squads out to shoot teachers in front of their students and cut off protest leaders' heads and leave their bodies on the roadside for all to see and be afraid, and will do so with the aid of the U.S. military and the U.S. State Department. That is the lesson here, and it should never be forgotten.

I hope that every one of the crimes committed by the rightwing are investigated and prosecuted.

I hope that the U.S. military is thrown out of the country and all untoward U.S. influence is expunged, and Honduras becomes an independent country.

I hope that the people of Honduras create and approve their own constitution and throw out the one written by Reagan's henchmen.

I hope that Honduras never again becomes the stepping stool for U.S. aggression in the region.

I hope that the poor majority of Honduras see social justice and equal opportunity at long last, as is occurring in other countries in Latin America where the conspiracies and coup d'etats of the rightwing and their U.S. controllers have failed--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador-- or have been overcome with time and hard civic work on democracy--Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador and others.

You are now arguing--as I'm sure that the Honduran rightwing elite and their Washington P.R. firms are arguing--that the rightwing crimes in Honduras should be "framed" as a political controversy, now resolved. Because of the collective clout of leftwing governments in Latin America, including Brazil and many other countries, which refused to allow Honduras back into the OAS, the Honduran people now have a chance to restore their democracy and engage in reform. The political controversy has a chance to be resolved FOR REAL--not with coups, and exiles, and imprisonments, and murders, but with discussion and votes--which is all that Zelaya and his supporters ever proposed and tried to achieve.

You sneer at Chavez, and even at Santos, for accomplishing this agreement, but they had most of the leaders of the southern half of this hemisphere strongly behind them--it was a regional agreement--and we don't know yet if Santos had Obama administration backing on this or not. This was the will of the people of the region: No more U.S. supported coups; no more U.S. domination. If the U.S. and the rightwing in Honduras had had their way, there would have been no such opportunity for reform--for restoring and improving Honduran democracy. That was the U.S. position until this agreement. They wanted Honduras recognized, as is, without conditions. They and the Honduran rightwing lost that one.

So now the rightwing has to operate on a more level playing field and have to explain themselves to the Honduran people in a context in which disagreement, and calling them on their lies and crimes, cannot be so easily stifled. Thus, they--and you, as their advocate--try to shift ground, saying "let's move on," kidnapping the president was merely "questionable," Zelaya was really the author of his own kidnapping and exile, and martial law was just a bad dream.

But I cannot forget what they did, and I don't think the people of Honduras can or will either. The rightwing is a small elite in cahoots with outside forces--mainly the U.S. corporations and war profiteers in control of the U.S. government. When they are challenged by truly democratic forces, they resort to violence. I find this extremely worrisome. It does not surprise me that you don't find this worrisome and that you try to excuse it. But I think you ought to ask yourself, if you can, why the leftwing, in Honduras, tries to accomplish its goals with political proposals and votes of the people, and why the rightwing resorts to martial law, violence and suppression of open discussion. To me, the answer is obvious. The rightwing elite's control over Honduras is illicit. It is implemented with backroom deals and corruption. They do not represent the majority and thus they fear the majority. Their untoward power cannot be maintained in a real democracy.

If YOU believe in democracy, you would condemn that kind of power and its tendency to violence and lawlessness. Instead, you excuse it and urge that we forget the eruption of violence and lawlessness for which the rightwing elite, and they alone, are responsible. This serves the rightwing purpose of maintaining their illicit power in this new circumstance, in which they are more answerable for their crimes and their powermongering. DO you believe in democracy, Bacchus39? I cannot see that you do. But I would be interested to know if you think you do, and how you can justify the rightwing's violence and lawlessness in Honduras as democratic. Or do you think that their violence and lawlessness--their seizure of power, their suspension of civil rights, their repression of dissent and their martial law 'election--are merely "questionable" as democratic?

[Bacchus39]

12. he most certainly did commit crimes and was deposed because of those

the military was ordered to remove him by the Supreme Court. his expulsion from Honduras was what Honduran officials did incorrectly. however, if he stayed in Honduras he would have been tried more than likely and be in prison. his expulsion from Honduras actually saved his ass. charges were dropped against him.

[EFerrari]

14. Baloney. There is no constitutional provision for military coups in Honduras.

And a military coup it was as cable gate has shown.

[Bacchus39]

15. there's no provision for holding a vote ruled illegal by the supreme court or Congress either

Z was ordered removed from power. no provision for canceling an election either as far as I know.

[naaman fletcher]

10. "The proper democratic procedure "

While I am in face with you overall on the issue, why the sudden concern for proper democratic procedure for someone who in fact ignored proper democratic procedure and ignored the supreme court and the congress?

[Judi Lynn]

2. 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

~snip~
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.

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

~~~~~
Honduras: Lawyers Question Basis of Zelaya Ouster
Written by Jennifer Moore
Friday, 25 September 2009 06:26

~snip~
a preliminary report by an international delegation of lawyers that visited Honduras in late August affirms that a military coup is what took place. The report considers the lack of an independent judiciary in Honduras as part of the context in which this occurred and points to powerful economic and political groups opposed to social advances promoted by President Zelaya as the driving force behind the coup.

The report, drafted by members of the American Association of Jurists, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the International Association Against Torture, further states that the military overthrow was a clear violation of Honduras' 1982 Political Constitution. Among various constitutional articles that the report claims were violated includes Article 102, which states: "No Honduran may be expatriated nor delivered by the authorities to a foreign state." <1>

~snip~
According to the report, the opinion poll was a "determining factor" in the coup. They explain that "powerful economic and political sectors including those who control the Honduran media vehemently opposed the move and recurred to the courts and the legislature to put in motion a very accelerated lawsuit, lacking assurances of due process in order to justify actions without grounds against President Zelaya, who they intended to try." Other reforms Zelaya was enacting which enraged to the business class included the rise in the minimum wage, the exclusion of intermediaries from state fuels purchases and the decision to purchase oil from the cheapest provider - the Venezuelan oil company Petrocaribe.

~snip~
Concerns over weaknesses in Honduras' judiciary have been raised before. The Inter American Human Rights Commission has criticized the country for lack of an independent and efficient judiciary, notes another member of the delegation. Furthermore, a report from Freedom House states, "The judicial branch of government in Honduras is subject to intervention and influence by both the elected branches and wealthy private interests." <4> The US State Department profile of Honduras also mentions that "Although the constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence." <5>

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2132/1

~~~~~
Honduras' PR Coup
Submitted by Brendan Fischer on December 20, 2010 - 9:03pm

~snip~
Wikileaks recently published documents suggesting that PR spin helped determine the final outcome of the June 2009 Honduran coup. At the same time that a July 2009 diplomatic cable from the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras to top government officials confirmed that the Honduran president’s removal was illegal, professional lobbyists and political communicators were beginning a PR blitz, eventually managing to manipulate America into believing the coup was a constitutional act.

~snip~
Zelaya was no angel, and an earlier Ambassador described him as a “rebellious teen” in a different cable released by Wikileaks. Zelaya had pushed the limits of his power by requesting a non-binding referendum (essentially an opinion poll) about whether there should be a second, binding referendum to convoke a constituent assembly that would rewrite the Constitution (many believed Zelaya’s goal was to revise the Constitution’s one-term requirement so he could make a second presidential run). The Honduran Constitution can only be amended through a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions, so had the assembly actually been invoked, its proposed constitutional changes would have been invalid. Zelaya pushed forward with the referendum after the opposition-controlled Congress passed a law prohibiting it and two lower courts had ordered him to suspend his efforts. When the head of the military refused to carry out the poll, the president dismissed him, and refused a subsequent Supreme Court order to reinstate the General. That refusal led the Court to order his arrest; in carrying out the arrest, the military pulled him from bed at gunpoint and sent him out of the country.

Whether this conduct and arrest order justified forcible removal by the military was another matter. Both the Supreme Court and Congress were dominated by Zelaya opponents who were disturbed about the president's leftward shift, and with Zelaya opponent Roberto Micheletti in line to succeed the president, the judicial and legislative branches had clear incentives to favor Zelaya's removal. Congress’ after-the-fact resolution supporting the coup had the effect of ascending Micheletti to the presidency, clearly benefiting party interests.

The Embassy Deemed the Coup Illegal, but the Obama Administration Hesitated
With the methods and motives of Honduran political actors in question, the U.S. was correct to tread cautiously. By July 24, though, the U.S. government was informed by the American embassy in Honduras that “there is no doubt” that the events of June 28 “constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup.” The Ambassador sent top U.S. officials a cable titled “Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup” on July 24 that analyzed and dismissed each of the constitutional and legal arguments made by coup supporters. The cable notes that Zelaya never actually modified the Constitution to allow presidential reelection, and many other Honduran officials, including presidents, had proposed presidential reelection without being deemed illegitimate and removed from office. The Embassy's legal analysis states that the Constitution does not clearly delineate impeachment procedures, but "confirms that the removal of the president is a judicial matter" where the Attorney General files charges with the Supreme Court, the Court indicts the accused president, and a full, transparent trial takes place. Congress' after-the-fact resolution "disapproving" of Zelaya also did not make the removal Constitutional. While acknowledging that there may be a prima facie case against Zelaya, the cable notes “there was never any formal, public weighing of the evidence nor any semblance of due process” as required by the Honduran Constitution. Because an alleged Constitutional violation was the purported basis for Zelaya’s removal, it is necessary that opponents follow the Constitution’s removal procedures and due process requirements—a Constitutional wrong is not made right by committing another Constitutional wrong. “No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya,” the cable says, “his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and Micheletti's ascendance as ‘interim president’ was totally illegitimate.”

More:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9806

~~~~~
Rerun in Honduras
Coup pretext recycled from Brazil ’64

By Mark Cook

The pretext for the Honduran coup d’état is nothing new. In a remarkable replay, bogus charges that the corporate media in the U.S. and Europe have repeated endlessly without attempting to substantiate—that Honduran president Manuel Zelaya sought to amend the country’s constitution to run for another term—are virtually identical to the sham justification for the 1964 coup against Brazilian president João Goulart.

The Brazilian coup, depicted at the time as a victory for constitutional democracy, kicked off a series of extreme right-wing military coups against democratically elected governments throughout the Southern Cone of Latin America and beyond. Brazil was turned into a base for subversion of neighboring democratic governments (National Security Archive, 6/20/02); Goulart and a previous Brazilian president, Juscelino Kubitschek, both died in 1976 in incidents that have since been attributed to the multinational assassination program Operation Condor (Folha, 1/27/08; Carta Maior, 7/17/08). Given that history, the strength and unanimity of Latin American and international condemnation of the Honduran coup—despite a worldwide media disinformation campaign against Zelaya—is hardly surprising.

On March 31, 1964, the democratic government of Brazil’s Goulart, a wealthy rancher hated by big business for having dramatically raised the minimum wage, was overthrown in a coup d’état organized by ultra-rightist elements in Brazil’s military and strongly backed by the U.S. government. For decades, U.S. officials denied involvement in the coup, but in 2004 the nongovernmental National Security Archive (3/31/04) published newly declassified documents revealing President Lyndon Johnson’s personal involvement and a massive U.S. military and CIA commitment.

~snip~
The U.S. corporate media have carefully averted their eyes from such history as that of General Alvarez—as from the role of School of the Americas graduates in the current coup. It was thanks to the School of the Americas Watch and the National Catholic Reporter (6/29/09), not the corporate media, that the public learned of ongoing U.S. training of the Honduran military, despite the Obama administration’s claim to have cut military ties. When history repeats itself, don’t look for accurate coverage from those who got it wrong the first time around.
More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3893

~~~~~
January 14, 2011
The Known Unknowns in Honduras
Leaked cables reveal U.S. government knowledge of disastrous military coup.
By Jeremy Kryt

When is a coup not a coup? Taken altogether, the secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have exposed multiple instances of deception by the U.S. State Department, in relation to foreign dignitaries, friendly nations and even U.N. Representatives. But recently leaked cables sent from the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, offer evidence that the State Department was, in at least one instance, also misleading the American people.

In June 2009, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically-elected president of Honduras, was ousted from power by a coalition of military leaders and far-right political elites, plunging the country into an economic and human rights nightmare from which it has yet to emerge. A month after the putsch, after weeks of rigorous investigation, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens cabled the State Department to say that, based on his research, the coup had been “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” The cable concluded by calling the putsch a throwback to “the way Honduran presidents were removed in the past: a bogus resignation letter and a one-way ticket to a neighboring country.” Honduran soldiers had kidnapped Zelaya in his pajamas and a “totally illegitimate” puppet government was installed.

This in turn led to mass protests across the country, followed by harsh crackdowns under martial law. According to human rights groups, scores of peaceful demonstrators, union leaders, journalists and teachers have been slain by government forces since the coup, and hundreds of others have been beaten and detained when police and soldiers attacked peaceful marches and demonstrations. (Ten journalists were murdered in 2010, making it the most dangerous country in the world for members of the press on a per capita basis.)

But the State Department chose not to tell the American people about atrocities. Instead the coup was portrayed as a murky legal situation and the Obama administration made little mention of the civil rights violations. Most important of all, say critics, the State Department never designated the takeover a “military coup,” which under U.S. law would have necessitated the cessation of all aid programs.

More:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6842/the_known_unknowns_in_honduras

[EFerrari]

4. COFADEH is not happy and I don't blame them.

But if the resistance is recognized as a political party, the trade off may work to their advantage insofar as their case may have a better chance of being heard.