The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in About That Referendum in Honduras

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

bobinsantamonica — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:39:26 -0000

Even coup apologist Miguel Astrada agrees:

"True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland.
That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of
Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a
meritorious immigration beef against his country. "

In short the legal order of the Supreme Court to arrest him was not followed. He was illegally deported. Denying hime the opportunity to be arrested and make his case before the court, by deporting him illegally and blocking the runway when he attempted to return is NOT a simple immigration case. It&#39s a coup.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

James Clark — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:41:42 -0000

The Honduran government followed THEIR laws, with their court ordering the arrest and removal of their president, and giving those instructions to the military. It was a legal removal.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

bobinsantamonica — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:39:26 -0000

Even coup apologist Miguel Astrada agrees:

"True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland.
That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of
Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a
meritorious immigration beef against his country. "

In short the legal order of the Supreme Court to arrest him was not followed. He was illegally deported. Denying hime the opportunity to be arrested and make his case before the court, by deporting him illegally and blocking the runway when he attempted to return is NOT a simple immigration case. It's a coup.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

Workhorse — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:42 -0000

The Honduran government followed THEIR laws, with their court ordering the arrest and removal of their president, and giving those instructions to the military. It was a legal removal.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

bobinsantamonica — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:58:57 -0000

So, impeach. We didn&#39t send the army to take Nixon to the airport. A coup is a coup

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

bobinsantamonica — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:58:57 -0000

So, impeach. We didn't send the army to take Nixon to the airport. A coup is a coup

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

lurxst — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:47:58 -0000

Still trying to understand the Honduras situation better. It appears that, despite low approval ratings, Zelaya was acting constitutionally, to the dismay of his opponents in the Honduran congress and apparently stratified Supreme Court.

http://www.narconews.com/en.html

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

DLS — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:20:20 -0000

"forced a national vote for modifying the constitution it would have been illegal"

The foregoing is something a liberal Democrat would almost exclusively would be imagined of doing here.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

DLS — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:18:36 -0000

"Liberals need to get over their Bush fixation"

A *** lot *** of contrition as well as overdue rehabilitation is in order. However, "most in need, least likely."

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

jobo4220 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:12:55 -0000

"If indeed the act of simply calling for such a convention is illegal, than the country&#39s superme court and legislature acted appropriately in removing him from office."

It&#39s not. That&#39s why they misrepresent it as a referendum to extend his term.

"I agree it seems strange that simply talking about something as grounds for removal/impeachment/coup but that is Latin America for you."

Those three actions are not interchangeable ones that can be justified on the same grounds. That may have been Latin America for you in 1982, but the world has moved on for the better, even if much of the Honduran elite prefers the old ways.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

lurxst — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:47:58 -0000

http://www.narconews.com/en...

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

lurxst — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:30:36 -0000

Distilling the reports down it seems that President Zelaya was calling for a "constitutional convention" which may or may not have been used to consider his alleged amendment to remove term limits. If indeed the act of simply calling for such a convention is illegal, than the country&#39s superme court and legislature acted appropriately in removing him from office. I agree it seems strange that simply talking about something as grounds for removal/impeachment/coup but that is Latin America for you. They have had a lot of recent experience with tyrants and dictators, much more than the U.S.

It was an old fantasy to see Bush and his cronies marched out of the White House at gun point for their egregious abuses of our constitution. Despite what some commenters may desire, I will never get over it and will keep reminding people how easily we can be duped by those in power.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

jobo4220 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:28:35 -0000

Some important points here about the issues of legality:
http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html

The legalistic arguments being pushed by the pro-coupsters are empty, self-serving lies. They tend to rely on their own speculations to justify themselves with circular reasoning. It was a referendum to extend his term because that&#39s what they speculate it would be used for eventually, you see. And you can&#39t understand Fausta&#39s insistence that it wasn&#39t non-binding because the basis for that insistence is Fausta speculating that Zelaya would have somehow made it so after the fact, which would then be illegal, and therefore justifies the coup.

The question is merely asking the public if it agrees with the idea of doing such an assembly. There is no credible reason why this is illegal, not clearly so anyway. One side was interested in hearing the public&#39s answer. The other side was absolutely determined that nobody ever hear that answer. We can believe the claims of the coup about why this is: that asking the public what it thinks about a public policy proposal is somehow anti-democratic tyranny that has to be stopped by all means necessary. Or, less absurdly, we can infer that the answer wasn&#39t going to go the way the coup wanted, so they chose to preemptively silence the answer, and what we&#39re hearing are the excuses they&#39ve cobbled together.

Most importantly, if the response to this question went in Zelaya&#39s favor (as seems almost certain given the lengths taken to prevent anyone hearing the answer by his opponents), the most that would happen would be that it would be proposed that a binding version of the question be put into the ballot for the upcoming election, with the non-binding answer offered as public support for that proposal. If this went through then the question would go onto the ballot. This would mean that even if everything went Zelaya&#39s way, by the time this could be voted on Honduras would already be electing a new president at the very same time. You wouldn&#39t have an outcome to that question, let alone any assembly convened or anything changed, until Honduras already had a new president-elect. How can Zelaya extend his term by putting a question about a constitutional assembly on the ballot alongside who to elect as his replacement? Thus, you can see the emptiness of the claims that this was a personal power grab to extend Zelaya&#39s term. It makes no sense, unless you accept some improbable and illogical chain of events the pro-coupsters choose to speculate would take place in the future.

The fact of the matter is that Honduras has an entrenched and corrupt establishment of wealthy interests that is accustomed to running things as they see fit without much interference from public opinion. And they have a highly undemocratic constitution, written in 1982 while Honduras was a US military base largely ruled by John Negroponte and the Reaganites, whose provisions are designed to insulate those entrenched interests against the possibility of democratic change. The possibility of rewriting the constitution would risk the outcome being a more democratic constitution that might reduce their unjust power. Therefore, those interests used a military coup to prevent this possibility and now concoct ridiculous scenarios to make Zelaya into some kind of bogeyman and throw around fake legalistic lies (and the word "Chavez" as much as possible) to blind people to what&#39s actually going on.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

shannonlee — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:56:38 -0000

Liberals need to get over their Bush fixation. They would be smart to stop attacking Bush by dragging his name into every discussion regardless to whether or not it makes any logical sense.

Liberals should be attacking the Reps that are still in office for their blind support of Bush.

This addiction of attacking Bush is starting to become anti-productive.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

GreenDreams — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:44:20 -0000

I have a good friend in the tourism sector in Honduras. This "coup" or whatever, has trashed one of the country&#39s only growth sectors. It&#39s dead for now, and for probably months to come, at least. Years if the military doesn&#39t put the damn tanks and tear gas away. Regardless of what American politicos think of the need for this, or the way it was done, it&#39s financial ramifications for the entire country are devastating.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

workhorse — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:33:14 -0000

Bush did not seek to modify the constitution via illegal means. For example, in the USA we can not modify the constitution by having a national vote. They can not do that in Honduras either. If Bush forced a national vote for modifying the constitution it would have been illegal, and grounds for immediate impeachment. Your arguments above are without substance or basis in any factual manner.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

DLS — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:20:20 -0000

"forced a national vote for modifying the constitution it would have been illegal"

The foregoing is something a liberal Democrat would almost exclusively would be imagined of doing here.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

DLS — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:18:36 -0000

"Liberals need to get over their Bush fixation"

A *** lot *** of contrition as well as overdue rehabilitation is in order. However, "most in need, least likely."

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

jobo4220 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:12:55 -0000

"If indeed the act of simply calling for such a convention is illegal, than the country's superme court and legislature acted appropriately in removing him from office."

It's not. That's why they misrepresent it as a referendum to extend his term.

"I agree it seems strange that simply talking about something as grounds for removal/impeachment/coup but that is Latin America for you."

Those three actions are not interchangeable ones that can be justified on the same grounds. That may have been Latin America for you in 1982, but the world has moved on for the better, even if much of the Honduran elite prefers the old ways.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

lurxst — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:30:36 -0000

It was an old fantasy to see Bush and his cronies marched out of the White House at gun point for their egregious abuses of our constitution. Despite what some commenters may desire, I will never get over it and will keep reminding people how easily we can be duped by those in power.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

jobo4220 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:28:35 -0000

Some important points here about the issues of legality:
http://www.counterpunch.org...

The legalistic arguments being pushed by the pro-coupsters are empty, self-serving lies. They tend to rely on their own speculations to justify themselves with circular reasoning. It was a referendum to extend his term because that's what they speculate it would be used for eventually, you see. And you can't understand Fausta's insistence that it wasn't non-binding because the basis for that insistence is Fausta speculating that Zelaya would have somehow made it so after the fact, which would then be illegal, and therefore justifies the coup.

The question is merely asking the public if it agrees with the idea of doing such an assembly. There is no credible reason why this is illegal, not clearly so anyway. One side was interested in hearing the public's answer. The other side was absolutely determined that nobody ever hear that answer. We can believe the claims of the coup about why this is: that asking the public what it thinks about a public policy proposal is somehow anti-democratic tyranny that has to be stopped by all means necessary. Or, less absurdly, we can infer that the answer wasn't going to go the way the coup wanted, so they chose to preemptively silence the answer, and what we're hearing are the excuses they've cobbled together.

Most importantly, if the response to this question went in Zelaya's favor (as seems almost certain given the lengths taken to prevent anyone hearing the answer by his opponents), the most that would happen would be that it would be proposed that a binding version of the question be put into the ballot for the upcoming election, with the non-binding answer offered as public support for that proposal. If this went through then the question would go onto the ballot. This would mean that even if everything went Zelaya's way, by the time this could be voted on Honduras would already be electing a new president at the very same time. You wouldn't have an outcome to that question, let alone any assembly convened or anything changed, until Honduras already had a new president-elect. How can Zelaya extend his term by putting a question about a constitutional assembly on the ballot alongside who to elect as his replacement? Thus, you can see the emptiness of the claims that this was a personal power grab to extend Zelaya's term. It makes no sense, unless you accept some improbable and illogical chain of events the pro-coupsters choose to speculate would take place in the future.

The fact of the matter is that Honduras has an entrenched and corrupt establishment of wealthy interests that is accustomed to running things as they see fit without much interference from public opinion. And they have a highly undemocratic constitution, written in 1982 while Honduras was a US military base largely ruled by John Negroponte and the Reaganites, whose provisions are designed to insulate those entrenched interests against the possibility of democratic change. The possibility of rewriting the constitution would risk the outcome being a more democratic constitution that might reduce their unjust power. Therefore, those interests used a military coup to prevent this possibility and now concoct ridiculous scenarios to make Zelaya into some kind of bogeyman and throw around fake legalistic lies (and the word "Chavez" as much as possible) to blind people to what's actually going on.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

shannonlee — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:56:38 -0000

Liberals need to get over their Bush fixation. They would be smart to stop attacking Bush by dragging his name into every discussion regardless to whether or not it makes any logical sense.

Liberals should be attacking the Reps that are still in office for their blind support of Bush.

This addiction of attacking Bush is starting to become anti-productive.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

GreenDreams — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:44:20 -0000

I have a good friend in the tourism sector in Honduras. This "coup" or whatever, has trashed one of the country's only growth sectors. It's dead for now, and for probably months to come, at least. Years if the military doesn't put the damn tanks and tear gas away. Regardless of what American politicos think of the need for this, or the way it was done, it's financial ramifications for the entire country are devastating.

Re: About That Referendum in Honduras

Workhorse — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:33:14 -0000