Heh. Any kind of "both sides" talk in the Iran debate would get you branded a Maoist subversivo by Adam.
Hypocrisy is the lubricant of social intercourse, it is said.
Army overthrows Honduras president in vote dispute
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:24
#52
Cueball
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:24
#53
"when he should have been arrested and tried for any alleged violations of the constitution (though of course, they likely still would have needed the military to arrest him)."
I disagree that he should have been arrested. He should have remained president until the moment he was impeached by a vote in Congress.
Whether the Supreme Court should also have the power to impeach is a debate I can see with pros and cons on both sides. At a minimum though, there should be a full trial.
I would tend to think that it would be best for the Supreme Court to stick to knocking down laws it deems unconstitutional and leaving it up to Congress to impeach the president who championed said laws.
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:26
#54
No. In fact there have been 10 amendments.
Ok, Wiki shows you are correct. However, with the exception of one amendment to the Parliamentary seat distribution formula, all of the amendments have involved changes effecting just one province. Of those, only the New Foundland and Labrador school change thing was controversial. None of the changes involved altering the constitution on fundamental human rights or, with that one exception, anything controversial like something that pitted one province against another, like Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
I would be curious to know in Honduras what other, if any, parts of the constitution are unalterable, and who they are designed to benefit.
As I said, given the history of the 'strong personality' politics in South/Central America, I can understand why the constitution writers back in 1992 would have been so sensitive about including that provision making it unalterable. I'm not saying I agree with it, or disagree with it, I'm just saying I understand it.
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:35
#55
The army is teargassing people in the streets of Tegucigalpa. By you that's not violence?
Last I read . . .
I made no claims about how up-to-date my information was.
But thank you for providing a link to a story about the violence, your post was most informative and a good use of both of our time.
Al Jazeera - Honduras coup triggers clashes
Honduran security forces and protesters calling for the reinstatement of the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya, have clashed outside the presidential palace in the capital Tegucigalpa.Police and army units were deployed to guard the compound on Monday in the wake of a military coup that forced Zelaya into exile in Costa Rica.
Mariana Sanchez, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tegucigalpa, said riot police and soldiers at the presidential palace pushed against the protesters, who defied a curfew.
"The police and the army have been repelled by rocks thrown by the protesters - but now, I am watching a man being beaten by the police and the army," she said.
"The police have fired tear gas against the protesters."
. . .
Cristian Vallejo, a Red Cross paramedic, said he had taken 10 protesters to hospital, most of them with injuries from rubber-coated bullets.
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:38
#56
Cueball
Extending the possible terms of elected officials, for example the president, is on par with reorganizing the parlimentary seat distribution formula, and hardly an attempt to undermine fundamental human rights. Many countries have no such provisions limiting the term that an elected official can remain in office, for example: Canada.
Trying to defy an illigitimate constitutional process designed by the Honduran military to protect their right to intervene in the politcal process of the civilian government, and forced upon the Honduran people by a military Junta is a crime that requires arresting, according to Adam. Meanwhile, simillar provisions in the Iranian constitution which assert the supreme authority of the Islamic oligarchy, and its committee of Islamic jurists, may be opposed by any means necessary.
What was the crime that Zalaya committed? It is very simple for anyone not committed to self delusion: Firing the head of the armed forced for refusing a direct order.
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:42
#57
Interesting question: why, when the three branches of government are supposedly equal, is it only a coup when the president is deposed?
The New Republic Blog - Fetishizing the Presidency
. . .If anything, the hemisphere's unanimous, outraged reaction to events in Tegucigalpa - which, for once, saw Washington and Caracas in strong agreement against the coup - underlines the region's pathologically imbalanced veneration of presidential power. After all, in 1999, when Hugo Chávez, with the agreement of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, moved to shut down Venezuela's democratically elected congress, we heard nary a peep from the OAS. And in 2007, when Ecuador's own neoauthoritarian president Rafael Correa moved to shut down congress with the Supreme Court's approval, nobody cried coup. In neither case were those closures allowed by the existing constitution, yet nobody would've taken cries of a "coup" seriously.
Somehow, though, when the Honduran Congress, with the support of the Supreme Court, moves against the president, the continent's foreign affairs ministries fly into deep crisis mode.
This underscores a harsh reality for Latin American believers in liberal constitutionalism. Deep down, only Presidential Power is considered real power in Latin America, which is why only moves against the president are considered actual coups. Our constitutions generally define all branches of government as equal, but it seems some are more equal than others.
. . .
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:51
#58
Extending the possible terms of elected officials, for example the president, is on par with reorganizing the parlimentary seat distribution formula, and hardly an attempt to undermine fundamental human rights. Many countries have no such provisions limiting the term that an elected official can remain in office, for example: Canada.
Canada has a parliamentary not a legislative system, nearly every country with a president has term limits on the executive. I've read some people recently suggesting that there should be term limits on prime ministers as well, however, I suppose due to the fact that changes in the cabinet occur frequently, people have not seemed so concerned with Prime Ministers and Premiers remaining in office for long periods of time. It is actually fairly ironic given that in reality a Prime Minister in most countries probably has less checks and balances on their leadership than a President.
Trying to defy an illigitimate constitutional process designed by the Honduran military, and forced upon the Honduran people by a military Junta, to protect their right to intervene in the politcal process of the civilian government is a crime that requires arresting, according to Adam.
I can only think that for some reason you are trying to bait me. I've said about 5 times that I thought the process used in Honduras was completely innapropriate. Zelaya should not have been arrested.
I said that I thought an impeachment process was in order as well as the prevention of the referendum because of the constitutional decree that prevents any attempt to remove the one term and out rule.
I also said that whether that whether that should be part of the constitution can be debated, as we have been doing, and I also said I had no opinion on the matter either way. What I said is that, agree with the law or not, it is the law and he attempted to illegally defy it, not only with the referendum itself, but with the fact that he attempted to hold the referendum at all, even though the constitution makes it clear that only the legislature can approve a referendum on changing the constitution.
I'm not interested in making any comparisons to the situation in Iran.
I see you are engaged in attempting to equate the situation in Iran with the fact that the military was involved in writing the constitution in Honduras. That's fair, but, in terms of the specific situation, I fail to see how either the decree preventing the president from running for a second term or the rule that only the legislature can approve a referendum on the constitution in any way is there to benefit the military. Clearly, these rules were put in place to try and prevent a future strong personality from taking dictatorial power in Honduras.
At this point, we are starting to endlessly repeat ourselves, and if you have nothing new to add, but only continue to engage in what I can only conclude are attempts to bate me, I will ignore your future posts.
Mon, 2009-06-29 21:58
#59
Cueball
Interesting question: why, when the three branches of government are supposedly equal, is it only a coup when the president is deposed?
The New Republic Blog - Fetishizing the Presidency
. . .If anything, the hemisphere's unanimous, outraged reaction to events in Tegucigalpa - which, for once, saw Washington and Caracas in strong agreement against the coup - underlines the region's pathologically imbalanced veneration of presidential power. After all, in 1999, when Hugo Chávez, with the agreement of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, moved to shut down Venezuela's democratically elected congress, we heard nary a peep from the OAS. And in 2007, when Ecuador's own neoauthoritarian president Rafael Correa moved to shut down congress with the Supreme Court's approval, nobody cried coup. In neither case were those closures allowed by the existing constitution, yet nobody would've taken cries of a "coup" seriously.
Somehow, though, when the Honduran Congress, with the support of the Supreme Court, moves against the president, the continent's foreign affairs ministries fly into deep crisis mode.
This underscores a harsh reality for Latin American believers in liberal constitutionalism. Deep down, only Presidential Power is considered real power in Latin America, which is why only moves against the president are considered actual coups. Our constitutions generally define all branches of government as equal, but it seems some are more equal than others.
. . .
Good point. But Canadians seem to have trouble grasping the fact that Stephen Harper's manipulation of the vestiges of monarchal power inherent in the office of the Governor General to give democracy "a break" (prorogue parliment) until such a time as a new leader of the opposition could be appointed was indeed a coup. So perhaps the idea that supreme authority resides in the executive, and not in the constituent assembly is not so alien to Canada, as well.
Mon, 2009-06-29 22:07
#60
Cueball
I see you are engaged in attempting to equate the situation in Iran with the fact that the military was involved in writing the constitution in Honduras. That's fair, but, in terms of the specific situation, I fail to see how either the decree preventing a second term to the president or the rule that only the legislature can approve a referendum on the constitution in any way is there to benefit the military. Clearly, these rules were put in place to try and prevent a future strong personality from taking dictatorial power in Honduras.
Huh? What if they are elected repeatedly? How is that dictatorial? And, lets remember, Zalaya's referendum was merely to ask if an assembly could be convened to debate the issue, not to actually change the constitution. It was not a constitutional referendum, in any way shape or form.
This rule was put into place to prevent the long term evolution of a strong civilian leadership capable of opposing the supreme authority of the military. No one could establish themselves enough to make significant reform to the system under single term presidency, that is precisely why the practice of single terms presidents is practically unheard of. Not even the US has such an absurd limit.
And yes, I am directly equating the constitutional provisions that assure that supreme authority lies with the military, in the Honduran constitution, and the constitutional provisions that assures the supreme authority lies with the Council of Islamic Jurists in Iran.
Wow Adam! The military unseats a sitting democractically elected president, and you are full of nuance. Whatever happened with firmly standing with the people, and on the side of democracy, against the fascist oligarchs?
Mon, 2009-06-29 22:23
#61
Huh? What if they are elected repeatedly? How is that dictatorial? And, lets remember, Zalaya's referendum was merely to ask if an assembly could be convened to debate the issue, not to actually change the constitution.
This rule was put into place to prevent the long term evolution of a strong civilian leadership capable of opposing the supreme authority of the military. No one could establish themselves enough to make significant reform to the system under single term presidency, that is precisely why the practice of single terms presidents is practically unheard of. Not even the US has such an absurd limit.
1.I don't know enough about Honduras to know whether the military has 'surpeme authority' or not. I suspect you are using the word 'supreme' to equate with the situation in Iran, but be that as it may, I don't know that whatever term you would use to say that final power in Honduras rests with the military is accurate or not.
2.I have seen arguments from a number of countries saying that a president should only be able to serve for one term. This is not all that unusual, and I don't see it as a servere violation of democracy, but a reasonable check on a president attempting to assume increasingly dictatorial powers.
3.I don't see it that keeping a leader in place for more than one term would make it more or less likely for a president to take on the military, if it does in fact have such final authority. I suppose a case could be made that only a long standing president would have the political capital to oppose the military, but long standing presidents usually also have so much political deficits that the longer they serve the weaker they get, unless they start to assume dictatorial powers for themselves. You may have a valid argument, but I don't see it. In this case, if Zelaya was so popular, he could have endorsed the leader we thought was murdered to be his successor and, if it is indeed such a problem, that person could have run on the platform of removing the military from holding supreme power.
Wow Adam! The military unseats a sitting democractically elected president, and you are full of nuance. Whatever happened with standing with the people, and on the side of democracy against the fascist oligarchs?
I think I've been entirely consistent. In both Honduras and Iran I've argued in favor of democratic principles being applied. When I made my first post, as I've said, I was naive on the reasons why the Honduran military remained involved in politics there. That said, you haven't presented any evidence, and I haven't read anything, showing the degree to which the military is, in fact, involved in the day to day running of the country, or the motivations behind their involvement (i.e, the benefit of the wealthy elite, or just for their own benefit), nor have you shown to me that the articles in the constitution that presumably give the military such an elite position are unamendable. As I have argued, I don't see that preventing certain items in the constitution from being unamendable is inherently undemocratic, although items that would entrench the military in politics clearly would be.
So, I've opposed the process by which Zelaya has been removed, but I don't oppose the idea that he should be removed.
Mon, 2009-06-29 22:27
#62
Interesting question: why, when the three branches of government are supposedly equal, is it only a coup when the president is deposed?
The New Republic Blog - Fetishizing the Presidency
. . .If anything, the hemisphere's unanimous, outraged reaction to events in Tegucigalpa - which, for once, saw Washington and Caracas in strong agreement against the coup - underlines the region's pathologically imbalanced veneration of presidential power. After all, in 1999, when Hugo Chávez, with the agreement of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, moved to shut down Venezuela's democratically elected congress, we heard nary a peep from the OAS. And in 2007, when Ecuador's own neoauthoritarian president Rafael Correa moved to shut down congress with the Supreme Court's approval, nobody cried coup. In neither case were those closures allowed by the existing constitution, yet nobody would've taken cries of a "coup" seriously.
Somehow, though, when the Honduran Congress, with the support of the Supreme Court, moves against the president, the continent's foreign affairs ministries fly into deep crisis mode.
This underscores a harsh reality for Latin American believers in liberal constitutionalism. Deep down, only Presidential Power is considered real power in Latin America, which is why only moves against the president are considered actual coups. Our constitutions generally define all branches of government as equal, but it seems some are more equal than others.
. . .
Here's a great dissection of the antidemocratic elitism that drives the author of the blog quoted above:
http://redpeppervenezuela.blogspot.com/2009/02/francisco-toro-and-venezu...
Mon, 2009-06-29 22:51
#63
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8125668.stm][color=green]Ousted Honduran leader to return[/color][/url]
The ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has said he will return home later this week, after being forced into exile on Sunday.
Addressing a meeting of leaders from the Organization of American States (OAS) in Nicaragua, Mr Zelaya invited other leaders to accompany him.
Tue, 2009-06-30 00:57
#64
Cueball
So, I've opposed the process by which Zelaya has been removed, but I don't oppose the idea that he should be removed.
Heh. Ridiculous. Removed for proposing to hold a referendum asking the people to determine if there should be a constitutional assembly formed to formulate a constitutional referendum question. Pierre Eliot Trudeau would have been impeached for committing just such an offence, when he held the Quebec seperation referendum.
Tue, 2009-06-30 01:19
#65
I can think of several during the Reagan admin, but with the exceptions I noted above, nothing since then.
Do you have anything more recent than 20 years ago?
So when you said 50 years, in order to cut off the well documented century plus historical continuity of American 'meddling' in Latin America you actually meant that you wanted your blank slate to only reach back 20 years, disregarding of course the 'exceptions which prove the rule' like Haiti, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala ect.
Tue, 2009-06-30 01:45
#66
So, I've opposed the process by which Zelaya has been removed, but I don't oppose the idea that he should be removed.
Heh. Ridiculous. Removed for proposing to hold a referendum asking the people to determine if there should be a constitutional assembly formed to formulate a constitutional referendum question. Pierre Eliot Trudeau would have been impeached for committing just such an offence, when he held the Quebec seperation referendum.
1.Trudeau didn't call the Quebec referendum, Rene Levesque did.
2.As I said, you are beating a dead horse on this. He should have faced impeachment charges for the reasons I've said over and over above dealing with his failure to follow the legal processes, but good spin.
I don't believe I actually said he should have been impeached by the legislature, if I did say that I overstepped myself, all I said is that the legislature was perfectly entitled to put him up on impeachment charges for the reasons I've stated many times. As I've also said many times, unfortunately that was not the process that was followed.
3.If you still want to play the game: who would have been in the constituent assembly and by what means would they have been appointed/elected?
Tue, 2009-06-30 01:48
#67
So when you said 50 years, in order to cut off the well documented century plus historical continuity of American 'meddling' in Latin America you actually meant that you wanted your blank slate to only reach back 20 years, disregarding of course the 'exceptions which prove the rule' like Haiti, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala ect.
Yes, 20 years. Since the fall of the Soviet Union. I'm hardly the only person who believes that the United States, contrary to the braying of populist leftist leaders in Latin America, has pretty much ignored the region since the fall of the Soviet Union, with the exceptions as I outlined above.
Tue, 2009-06-30 03:29
#68
A Few Thoughts on the Coup in Honduras:
http://rebelreports.com/post/132342133/a-few-thoughts-on-the-coup-in-hon...
Tue, 2009-06-30 09:49
#69
Never thought I'd see the day when any babblers started justifying a military coup. Yikes.
As for the claims the US is now hands-off in Latin America, I suggest a read-through of the news at nacla.org
Tue, 2009-06-30 10:43
#70
remind
Never thought I'd see the day when any babblers started justifying a military coup. Yikes.As for the claims the US is now hands-off in Latin America, I suggest a read-through of the news at nacla.org
There are lots of things that I now see on babble that I would have never have thought of seeing.
Canada apparently, at least according to the CIDA topic is going to be "hands on".
Tue, 2009-06-30 11:44
#71
Cueball
So, I've opposed the process by which Zelaya has been removed, but I don't oppose the idea that he should be removed.
Heh. Ridiculous. Removed for proposing to hold a referendum asking the people to determine if there should be a constitutional assembly formed to formulate a constitutional referendum question. Pierre Eliot Trudeau would have been impeached for committing just such an offence, when he held the Quebec seperation referendum.
1.Trudeau didn't call the Quebec referendum, Rene Levesque did.
Heh. I was thinking about the Charlottetown Referendum of 92, which was called by the Federal government.
In anycase now, you recognize now that action against Zayala for posing a question for the people of Honduras to review the constitution is hardly something worth pursuing in an democractic country.
Tue, 2009-06-30 12:15
#72
[url=http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/junio/mar30/Rio-Group.html]Rio Group demands reinstatement
of Zelaya[/url]
MANAGUA, June 29.- The Rio Group today condemned the coup d'état perpetrated in Honduras and reaffirmed its unconditional backing for the only president of that Central American country, José Manuel Zelaya.The final declaration of the emergency meeting of member countries in this capital refused to recognize the de facto government installed yesterday in Tegucigalpa.
The Rio Group members said that the coup executed this past Sunday in Honduras was an affront to the peoples and democracy of Latin America. . .
They particularly condemned the violence and injustice of Zelaya's kidnapping, and affirmed that his mandate was the only one that the Rio Group would recognize.
They reiterated their support for the constitutional president of Honduras and demanded his immediate and unconditional reinstatement to the office conferred upon him by his people through their vote.
Moreover, the declaration said it was "indispensable" to guarantee freedom of speech and the physical integrity of journalists in Honduras, several of whom had been arrested for reporting the repression of peaceful civil disobedience protesters.
The group noted that the installation of Roberto Micheletti as de facto president lacked legitimacy, and that they would not recognize any official appointed by the imposed government.
The declaration's signatories urged Honduran soldiers to subordinate themselves to Zelaya, the country's only commander in chief of the armed forces, and demanded that the coup leaders respect human rights and constitutional guarantees.
Tue, 2009-06-30 12:38
#73
To reiterate, he attempted to call a referendum on a matter the constitution doesn't allow a referendum on and he didn't have the legal authority to call the referendum, only the legislature does. Those are certainly matters in any normally functioning democracy that a legislature might consider grounds for impeachment. Were it only that the U.S Congress considered impeaching Bush for similarly attempting to usurp Congressional authority.
I agree that given that he was near the end of his term, the probably preferable outcome would have been for the referendum to not be held, the legislature to back down on impeachment and the legislature to consider voting on approving a referendum on constitutional reform that excluded the removal of the presidential term limits.
Tue, 2009-06-30 13:22
#74
The Honduran Coup: Another U.S. Destabilization Operation
Tue, 2009-06-30 13:23
#75
"As for the claims the US is now hands-off in Latin America, I suggest a read-through of the news at nacla.org"
I'll look up some of the items on their checklist later as I'm not familiar with them, but on first look I think it pretty much confirms what I said. If that's the best they can come up with, I think it seems the days of the CIA overthrowing Latin American governments are over as is other "unwelcome meddling" by the U.S government in general, except possibly on the 'drug war'. Some here might mention Haiti, but I don't think there is any credible evidence the CIA was involved there. At most it was like in Venezuala where the U.S government signed off on it but did not initiate it.
You can dislike 'free trade' all you like, but the fact is the U.S negotiated agreements with Latin American governments on a mutual basis and the Latin American governments were democratically elected. Those governments would not consider the free trade agreements to be 'unwelcome meddling'.
Some here might disagree with how democratic those Latin American governments are, but that reminds me of the situation in Mexico, where the left here assumed that Obrador would win (and I supported him, for whatever that's worth) because most Mexicans being poor would not consider voting for a 'non leftist', but, even if the election was stolen (which I don't think it was), there was no question the result was a dead heat and one Mexican commentator said something like: "the left just doesn't like to accept that a lot of poor and middle class Latinos vote for right wing parties. (mostly over 'social issues')"
So, I'll check out the handful of items I'm not familiar with, but so far I haven't seen anything that contradicts anything I've said.
Tue, 2009-06-30 13:43
#76
To reiterate, he attempted to call a referendum on a matter the constitution doesn't allow a referendum on and he didn't have the legal authority to call the referendum, only the legislature does. Those are certainly matters in any normally functioning democracy that a legislature might consider grounds for impeachment. Were it only that the U.S Congress considered impeaching Bush for similarly attempting to usurp Congressional authority
Bush could have and should have been impeached for several reasons. And the threat of martial law was used to push through massive bailouts of plutocrats' friends on Wall Street in recent times.
And this military coup is entirely unconstitutional even according to the sixteenth Honduran constitution enacted by the US-backed death squad government and narco-kleptocracy of Roberto Cordova. In fact the military dictatorship is now condemned by European Union leaders, Washington half-heartedly, and the rest of Latin America.
Tue, 2009-06-30 15:49
#77
Did my ears decieve me this morning, or did an American president actually expess support for a socialist leader?
Tue, 2009-06-30 15:53
#78
"UN General Assembly approves by acclamation a resolution condemning the coup in Honduras"
In Spanish: http://www.telesurtv.net/solotexto/nota/index.php?ckl=53121-NN
“Co-sponsors of the resolution: Antigua & Barbuda, Belice, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, República Dominicana, San Vicente y las Granadinas, Brasil, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Perú, México, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, República Árabe Siria.
Later additions: USA, Canada, Colombia, Cabo Verde, Barbados, Guyana y Bosnia y Herzegovina.”
This coup looks all but dead.
I think those here who in some way support the coup, or Like Adam T have cast doubt on forceful and absolute rejection of the overthrow of Zelaya, don’t understand very well the regional and historical context whereby even right wing government are feeling compelled to reject it.
The president of Argentina (the third most powerful country in Latin America) Cristina Fernández has announced she will accompany Zelaya on his return to Honduras on Thursday (http://www.telesurtv.net/solotexto/nota/index.php?ckl=53118-NN). Obviously the memories of coups and their consequences are fresh in the minds of Argentineans. And let’s not forget that these coups have always been accompanied by some sort of pseudo-intellectual, legalistic, ideological, and propagandistic justification that many bought into and on which the right wing press foisted its support. But the legacy of coups is clear for Latin Americans, as is the history of US intervention.
If anyone doubts the US continues to fund the de-stabilization of democratic governments in Latin America to this day I would point them to the work of Eva Golinger, who through freedom of information requests has exposed continued funding by USAID (a section of the US State Department ) for opposition groups in Venezuela and Bolivia. This kind of support is what led Evo Morales to expel the US ambassador from Bolivia.
And of course there’s Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative (AKA plan Mexico) by which the US funnels billions in military support to the regimes with the worst human rights records in the hemisphere.
Despite the rhetoric, the US has not taken any significant steps to end the coup and remains a prime suspect in backing it. As Jeremy Scahil (http://rebelreports.com/post/132342133/a-few-thoughts-on-the-coup-in-hon...) pointed out, given the ties between the US and Honduras, it is almost inconceivable that the coup could’ve taken place without at least tacit approval by US military or other officials. And given the relationship between the US and Honduras it is highly likely that the coup would be over quickly with just a few phone calls from Washington.
Tue, 2009-06-30 16:07
#79
To reiterate, he attempted to call a referendum on a matter the constitution doesn't allow a referendum on and he didn't have the legal authority to call the referendum, only the legislature does. ....
Reiterate all you like, it's still false.
It was not a "referendum" in any sense that was covered in the constitution.
A referndum is a form of direct democracy with a binding vote.
There is nothing in the constitution against the president calling for a non-binding survey:
“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country,” the [US] official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity during a teleconference call with reporters."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html?_r=5&hp
Secondly, it wasn't even a survey that asked about (a la Canada, et al) "extending his term limits":
As one media analyst pointed out, while many major news outlets in the US, including the Miami Herald, Wall St. Journal and Washington Post, said an impetus for the coup was specifically Zelaya's plans for a vote to allow him to extend his term in office, the actual ballot question was to be: "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?"Nations across Latin America, including Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, have recently re-written their constitutions. In many aspects the changes to these documents enshrined new rights for marginalized people and protected the nations' economies from the destabilizing effects of free trade and corporate looting...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/30
Tue, 2009-06-30 19:01
#80
remind
"Reiterate all you like, it's still false."
Exactly, and it is getting pretty sickening around here.
Too much floride and aspertame me thinks.
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:07
#81
Cueball
Obviously, the Constituent National Assembly would occur after the upcoming election, one in which Zelaya will not be running, since he can not under the existing constitution. The question doesn't even raise the issue of multi-term presidencies.
"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?"
As I suspected the military is mostly concerned with a new constitution created, one which will not protect their privileges:
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:23
#82
Can we avoid the "banana republic" language, please?
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:23
#83
Six months from now the CIA and gringos will have helped the Honduran elite to install a stooge of their liking. Obama just has to wring his hands over this banana republic for a little while longer and all will be resolved. The war on democracy continues
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/ghost-of-coups-p... The Gob and Pail:[/url]
The constitutions of Latin American republics essentially follow the model of the United States. The separation of legislative and executive powers requires something such as impeachment to provide for extreme circumstances. By contrast, a prime minister in a parliamentary system can be removed quite cleanly and effectively, or else forced into an election, by a loss of parliamentary support.
Oh really? Fat chance in Ottawa with herr Harper at the controls.
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:27
#84
What are you talking about? Honduras IS the original banana republic. Honduras is a shithole a few days' drive from Texas and where 70% of them live in poverty. And now they have a military dictatorship all over again.
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:35
#85
I'm talking about language that devalues other countries and cultures. As does "shithole."
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:36
#86
Cueball
Guatemala is the origincal "Banana Republic".
Tue, 2009-06-30 20:51
#87
[url=http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html]Friendly dictators[/url] filed under Central America, trading card #10
Tue, 2009-06-30 21:31
#88
Showdown in Honduras
Tue, 2009-06-30 23:03
#89
This could be another one of them de Facto/de jure things. De Jure it may be the case that that is all that is asked, but if the 'constituent assembly' is handpicked by Zelaya then it's likely that de Facto he is trying to undo the one term and out decree.
BTW, the law in Mexico is also for just one six year term with no later rerunning.
Chile has no reelection either, but the President can run after sitting out for a minimum of one or two terms.
Tue, 2009-06-30 23:31
#90
Cueball
Pathetic. Zelaya can not run in the election in which the referendum question about holding a 'constituent assembly' is to be asked, because it is the end of his term. Zelaya is out at the end of this term. He would not be picking anyone for anything, The constituent assembly would be called after his term is up. The whole idea that he wants to challenge the single term clause of the contitution seems to be entirely fabricated, the question isn't even about that.
"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?"
Got any other excuses?
As I pointed out before, the real issue is reforming the constitution at all.
Wed, 2009-07-01 00:10
#91
What you are saying is all the referendum that was going to take place on sunday asked is whether there should be another question on the ballot during the November election, that makes practically no sense.
Your sources say that's all it asks, my sources say something completely different, I assume both have access to the ballot question and both can read Spanish. I see no reason why your source should be any more believed than mine.
As far as I can tell the source stating that is the question comes from InformationClearingHouse and you haven't actually seen the ballot yourself firsthand. I have no idea how credible they are. So, you can go ahead and believe that if you like, I'll be skeptical.
We actually agree on a fair bit. As far as I can tell, Zelaya was/is a pretty decent president who wants to help the poor and reduce the power and influence of the wealthy elite. It's unfortunate he ended his term by acting in a manner that both the Honduran Legislature and the Honduran Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.
Of course, you say that this constitution was written to benefit the military and the elite, but you haven't actually shown me any evidence of that. You seem to want everybody to just believe your assumptions.
The only way the question makes any sense is if he hoped to do an end run around the legislature by bringing the question directly to the people. However, as we both agree he would no longer be president after November and as it seems he doesn't control a majority in the legislature, what is the point for him? His successor would presumably have been in charge of picking the constituent assembly and that person may have completely different views.
There are a lot of holes in the story you are trying to sell me.
Wed, 2009-07-01 00:50
#92
[url=http://soaw.org/index.php]SOA Watch is in contact with social movement organizers in Honduras. Here are the latest updates that we received:[/url]
- The people are resisting, beginning to take the streets, block the roads
- dozens of buses of people coming to the capital from other parts of the country
- over 10,000 people gathered yesterday in the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa to protest the illegal military coup, and they were violently dispersed by the military, using tear gas and guns (not clear if rubber bullets or otherwise). More protests are planned for today.
- There are wounded and dead, but numbers are still unclear
- our friends in Honduras have been to hospitals and have documented some cases
- THE OFFICIAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE FISCAL (ATTORNEY GENERAL) ARE REFUSING TO DOCUMENT THE ABUSES, AND ARE SUPPORTING THE COUP GOVERNMENT. COFADEH ASKS THAT WE DENOUNCE THESE OFFICIALS AS NOT FULFILLING THEIR DUTY AS DEFENDERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THEY ARE RAMON CUSTODIO, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND SANDRA PONCE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
- A new cabinet was named by the coup leaders, and they tried to bring them to be sworn in at the presidential palace, but lights were cut and phone lines downed, and this did not take place.
- Two army battalions have declared that they will not be loyal to the coup government
- A crew from TELESUR was detained and beaten, but released, after international public pressure
- Electricity is constantly being cut off, then comes again
- Censorship of the t.v. media, only channels of rightwing media being shown
- Coup govenrment is using well-known human rights abusers and their spokespersons
- Strike of schools and workers taking place
Wed, 2009-07-01 01:10
#93
Cueball
My source for the referendum question is the Honduran Daily, La Prensa. from here
Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí.......ó...........No.
The only way the question makes any sense is if he hoped to do an end run around the legislature by bringing the question directly to the people. However, as we both agree he would no longer be president after November and as it seems he doesn't control a majority in the legislature, what is the point for him? His successor would presumably have been in charge of picking the constituent assembly and that person may have completely different views.
Dunno. Maybe he isn't entirely motivated by self interest? Cares about the future of Honduras? Wants to give the people a chance to end de facto military rule?
Wed, 2009-07-01 01:30
#94
[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14171]The Honduran coup: another US destabilization operation[/url]
While publicly opposing the military coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday, the Obama administration on Monday indicated that it will not cut off aid to the Central American country or demand Zelaya's reinstatement.
Following a White House meeting with Washington's closest Latin American ally, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, President Obama reiterated the position that the ouster of Zelaya was illegal. However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters at a State Department briefing that the US government was refraining from formally declaring the removal of Zelaya a "coup."
Under the Foreign Assistance Act, no US aid can be given to a country whose elected head of government is removed by a military coup. The US is providing Honduras with $43 million in aid this year and maintains a major military presence in the country, including a base staffed by 600 US troops located 50 miles from the capital, Tegucigalpa. The US has also refrained from recalling its ambassador to Honduras. . .
They want to keep shovelling US aid to the military dictatorship while stalling for time until the next rigged election produces a stooge compatible with US interests as well as those of Honduran elite.
It's amazing that such a dirt-poor shhhhhhithole like Honduras can afford to buy state of the art weaponry from arms exporting imperialist countries.
Wed, 2009-07-01 02:45
#95
N.Beltov
The OAS recently took a merciless blow to the head when the member states bucked the dictat of the USA and overturned the spurious decision to expel Cuba from that organization over 45 years ago. Cuba quite rightly responded by noting that the OAS was unreformable and should simply die. If the OAS cannot support a member state against the establishment of an (unelected) military regime, then this may be the final shot to the head of a moribund organization.
If so, then I would say good riddance to bad rubbish. And on the ashes of that virtually worthless organization a new organization can take its place, without the Yanqui (or Canadian) imperialists as members, which will play the role of supporting the democratic aspirations of the peoples of central and south america, as the great Bolivar would have wished it.
Wed, 2009-07-01 14:49
#96
Wed, 2009-07-01 16:58
#97
Maysie
Fidel, stop calling Honduras a shithole. If you don't understand why that's so immensely offensive towards those who live there, you know, regular people trying to live their lives, that's not my problem. This is a progressive discussion board and that's over the line.
Wed, 2009-07-01 17:55
#98
Fidel, stop calling Honduras a shithole. If you don't understand why that's so immensely offensive towards those who live there, you know, regular people trying to live their lives, that's not my problem. This is a progressive discussion board and that's over the line
How many people in Honduras can read and write in gringo language do you think? Are you thinking what I'm thinking in that most of them will be sons and daughters of the fascist bastards running Honduras into the ground for too many years?
Do you find child labour and human trafficking to be offensive by any chance? Do you think children should have the right to an education and to not live in grinding poverty? Speak up or forever hold your peace.
[url=http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/honduras.html]Child slave labour in Honduras[/url] The bastards should enforce that part of the Honduran constitution which says children under 16 years should not be slave labourers for the gringos and rich rancheros. And never mind the routine child abuse and general lack of human rights that define those countries
Wed, 2009-07-01 20:53
#99
Behind the crisis (Ismael Moreno):
Zelaya has exploited the grassroots movement's need to be heard and the desire for prominence of some of its vocal leaders - who for their part seem to have forgotten that the Zelaya who now embraces Chávez and mouths revolutionary slogans once made an alliance with Roberto Micheletti.As a result of the impasse, the leaders of the grassroots social movement decided in late April 2009 to run an independent candidate in the November 2009 election: trade-union leader and human-rights activist Carlos Humberto Reyes.
Wed, 2009-07-01 21:18
#100
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/World_happiness.png/...
Happiest countries/those with most sustainable lifestyle/those with high subjective well-bwing are coloured freen (highest), blue (next) and so on own. Honduras, Venezuela etc are no more "shitholes" than the USA.
This map proves noting, is merely another way of looking at things. Or, carry on calling other people inferior, if you prefer.
Thu, 2009-07-02 02:03
#101
Giving Honduras the Haiti Treatment
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/giving-honduras-haiti-treatment
"the kidnapping was somewhat reminiscent of the seizure of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide by US troops back in February 2004.."