Gawain 0 #1 July 7, 2009 ...we will interfere with Honduras? Let me get this straight... -- Honduran Constitution limits time in office as President to one term only -- Then-president Zelaya pressed ahead to have a referendum held to amend the Constitution to allow more than one term be served -- Only the Honduran Congress can do this apparently -- The Honduran Supreme Court and Congress ruled the referendum illegal -- The Supreme Court issued a warrant for arrest of Zelaya -- The Military arrest, detain, and expel Zalaya from Honduras -- The next in the line of succession assumed the role as President There was no military coup. If it had been a real coup, Zelaya would be lying in a pool of his own blood, or hanging from a noose. Somehow though, this is condemned, even though they were following their laws. So, the US, the OAS condemn these events. OAS has suspended Honduras' membership. President Obama is "deeply concerned" and wants Zelaya to be restored to power. Honduras has pretty much told everyone to suck a d*ck and get over themselves. Now, based on a report I heard on the radio this morning, the Honduran Constitution is pretty black and white and it wasn't "okay" for Zelaya to do what he was trying to do. So, what's the deal here? Why is this so important? Did I mention that Zelaya is close buddies with Hugo Chavez? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #2 July 7, 2009 You missed the part where he tried to fire the head of the Army and install his own guy, which was also apparently a congressional power, not a presidential one, and the Supreme Court ruled the order unconstitutional. Basically, the president tried to hold a coup to hold onto power past his term. The supreme court rules it unconstitutional, and the army enforced the court's orders. Like you, I'm puzzled as to how this is a coup. Sounds more like a coup was avoided, to me.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #3 July 7, 2009 Well, if it is OK for one president to break and bend laws - why not Honduras' as well? I mean - what's good for the goose and all that. Besides Chaves probably told Barry that he better help or he would take his halo away.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 July 7, 2009 I agree, it is being done to appease Chavez. Obamacles does not wan his dirty laundry aired out by Chavez. Hmmmm I wonder what kind of deals they struck? Maybe a deal on warplanes for oil? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #5 July 7, 2009 >we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #6 July 7, 2009 Quote. So, what's the deal here? Why is this so important? Did I mention that Zelaya is close buddies with Hugo Chavez? ...........and Hugo is close buddies with Furer BHO. Maybe Furer BHO wants to run a couple of extra terms himself, and will play dead when Chavez exports revolution to restore Zelaya. What a fraternity Furer BHO has joined.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #7 July 7, 2009 Quote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. The Secretary of State didn't meet with Mousavi. That's a real, definite action. The reaction to the two situations are far from equivalent.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,176 #8 July 7, 2009 >That's a real, definite action. The reaction to the two situations are far from >equivalent. I agree - but then again, the situations are far from equivalent. Like I said, if he takes action to interfere with the process (i.e. sends troops down, starts an embargo, imposes trade sanctions) then he'd be making a big mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdamLanes 1 #9 July 7, 2009 QuoteWell, if it is OK for one president to break and bend laws - why not Honduras' as well? I mean - what's good for the goose and all that. It is not okay for government to break or bend the rules. The government should not be able to do anything a private citizen cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #10 July 7, 2009 Quote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #11 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... And, Honduras is an ally of the United States. Honduras is a key member of the US-led Container Security Initiative (CSI), which was initiated under Pres GW Bush's admin. Honduras has closely cooperated with the US on counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. A whole number of other bilaterals and multilaterals proposed by the US have been supported by Honduras. Iran, otoh, is not an ally. (Also thought you didn't want US leaders meeting with Iranian leaders?) Regardless of whether I like Zelaya's policies (I don't) or you like them or any of us like him or don't like him, he was/is the democratically-elected head of state who was expelled from his country at gun point. If he is able to return to Honduras, he is likely to face prosecution. He may even *deserve* to face prosecution (sounds like he does from what I’ve read). At this point an activist Supreme Court found him guilty without trial and gave orders to the military to remove him from office and expel him from his nation-state. He has not been found guilty of anything. He may be guilty. Of all my areas of expertise, Honduran constitutional law is not among them. At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 3 #12 July 7, 2009 Oh, how I pine for the good ole daze. The CIA gets active; the friend of our enemy commits suicide by shooting himself 12 times in the back, pausing once to re-load; the enemy of our enemy is installed in power and gives a sweetheart contract to Halliburton (or US Fruit, or whatever); he represses his people in the name of anti-Communism until most of the nation's population hates the US; then there's another coup the CIA fails to anticipate, installing another friend of our enemy; the Halliburton operation is nationalized and its assets seized; US diplomats take refuge in the Canadian Embassy; the new friend of our enemy is shown on the news kissing the leader of our enemy on both cheeks. Oh, my god, then he kissed him full on the mouth. Rinse, repeat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #13 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... And, Honduras is an ally of the United States. Honduras is a key member of the US-led Container Security Initiative (CSI), which was initiated under Pres GW Bush's admin. Honduras has closely cooperated with the US on counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. A whole number of other bilaterals and multilaterals proposed by the US have been supported by Honduras. I don't dispute Honduras' role in agreements with the US. QuoteIran, otoh, is not an ally. (Also thought you didn't want US leaders meeting with Iranian leaders?) My point being that after Zelaya was ousted, we have directly inserted ourselves into what was an apparent legal operation in Honduras. However, in the face of massive manipulation, and culturally similar Persians, we shy away for fear of Ayatollahs. We had our chance and President Obama had a chance to keep the stirring the pot. He blinked. It was a chance to push from the bottom-up in Iran, we did nothing while Iranian soldiers were shooting women in the streets. QuoteRegardless of whether I like Zelaya's policies (I don't) or you like them or any of us like him or don't like him, he was/is the democratically-elected head of state who was expelled from his country at gun point. The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed. http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm notes: QuoteTitle VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection. QuoteIf he is able to return to Honduras, he is likely to face prosecution. He may even *deserve* to face prosecution (sounds like he does from what I’ve read). Seems to me that Honduras doesn't want him back. QuoteAt this point an activist Supreme Court found him guilty without trial and gave orders to the military to remove him from office and expel him from his nation-state. He has not been found guilty of anything. He may be guilty. Of all my areas of expertise, Honduran constitutional law is not among them. Yours? At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. /Marg At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #14 July 7, 2009 You forgot the part where the taxpayers back home get shafted with the bill for the whole thing, and the profits go into the pockets of whoever bought the right politician. It'd be so much more honest if we just voted to give the taxpayers money directly to the big corporations who fund the political campaigns, wouldn't it? Oh, wait, that's exactly what we're doing...-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,230 #15 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell, if it is OK for one president to break and bend laws - why not Honduras' as well? I mean - what's good for the goose and all that. It is not okay for government to break or bend the rules. The government should not be able to do anything a private citizen cannot. Right - like declaring war, launching cruise missiles, erecting traffic lights, issuing passports...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,176 #16 July 8, 2009 >Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... Yeah. So? I'm all for meeting with foreign leaders, if they don't mind meeting with us. (That goes for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and France, too.) Much better than bombing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #17 July 8, 2009 Quote >Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... Yeah. So? I'm all for meeting with foreign leaders, if they don't mind meeting with us. (That goes for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and France, too.) Much better than bombing. Except for the small detail that he had been removed from office...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #18 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. The strength of rule of law is that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate based on political agenda – even if I you or I really don’t like that agenda. And that those who are charged with crimes are tried under the rule of law for those crimes … rather than forced to become an effectively stateless person at gunpoint. If Zelaya fled from prosecution, would you support the US offering him sanctuary or support returning to face charges? Does it matter what the political leanings of a lawfully elected democratic leader are? Should it? Maybe you can make a case that it should? Has Zelaya moved to disallow use of San Pedro Sula for US counterterrorism efforts? Is he acting in ways that challenge or undermine US interests? In a Kissinger-esque real politik manner – not necessarily one that I support but one that did drive much of US Central American policy in the 1970s and 1980s – one might be able to justify support of the actions *if* Zelaya had denied US access and *if* the newly elevated President had insured access. Has anything like that happened? What overriding reason do you see justifies going against rule of law? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #19 July 8, 2009 Quote QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. The strength of rule of law is that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate based on political agenda – even if I you or I really don’t like that agenda. And that those who are charged with crimes are tried under the rule of law for those crimes … rather than forced to become an effectively stateless person at gunpoint. If Zelaya fled from prosecution, would you support the US offering him sanctuary or support returning to face charges? Does it matter what the political leanings of a lawfully elected democratic leader are? Should it? Maybe you can make a case that it should? Has Zelaya moved to disallow use of San Pedro Sula for US counterterrorism efforts? Is he acting in ways that challenge or undermine US interests? In a Kissinger-esque real politik manner – not necessarily one that I support but one that did drive much of US Central American policy in the 1970s and 1980s – one might be able to justify support of the actions *if* Zelaya had denied US access and *if* the newly elevated President had insured access. Has anything like that happened? What overriding reason do you see justifies going against rule of law? /Marg Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. We know that he will be arrested and tried if he returns to Honduras. Should he have been expelled? I don't know. Was the Congress, Courts, and Military right in removing him from power? Based on what I could find that is written in english, I believe it was correct to remove him from office, methods not withstanding. The rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #20 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuote QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. Then either you're seeing something that I'm not, or we have very different views of what rule of law means. Did he have a trial? No. Was he democratically-elected and still within his legal term? Yes. What he may have intended to do beyond that legal term speaks to justification for charges not him being treated outside rule of law and made stateless. QuoteThe rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand. I'm tempted to quote you w/r/t having something to say but not appearing to be willing to discuss it when you dismiss issues and actions (or lack thereof) that relate directly to US interests as "gobbledyggok". If US interests aren't germane to foreign policy choices of an administration, what are? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,176 #21 July 8, 2009 >Except for the small detail that he had been removed from office. Again - so? If Hamid Karzai is kicked out of the Afghanistan government tomorrow, and he wants to meet with us, and we have time - why not? What's so bad about talking to people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #22 July 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. Then either you're seeing something that I'm not, or we have very different views of what rule of law means. Did he have a trial? No. Was he democratically-elected and still within his legal term? Yes. What he may have intended to do beyond that legal term speaks to justification for charges not him being treated outside rule of law and made stateless. Quote The rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand. I'm tempted to quote you w/r/t having something to say but not appearing to be willing to discuss it when you dismiss issues and actions (or lack thereof) that relate directly to US interests as "gobbledyggok". If US interests aren't germane to foreign policy choices of an administration, what are? /Marg You asked me if I was arguing that the rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees. I replied that based on what I've been able to read, the rule of law (in Honduras) has, in fact, been upheld. Now, why don't you show me exactly where the law has been violated? Because based on what I've seen, it was Zelaya that was violating it. The next in line of succession, Roberto Micheletti has stated that Zelaya is not welcome to return, and has in no way, indicated the Honduras would dissolve any existing treaties with any of its neighbors...indeed, it is Honduras' neighbors that have suspended treaties and memberships in organizations that are supposed to provide a diplomatic vehicle (like OAS...yet OAS has suspended Honduras' membership)... I am stating that the reason for US involvement is not rooted in US interests in treaties with Honduras, but with Zelaya's close ties to Chavez, and with Chavez' overt involvement in Zelaya's referendum campaign, somehow that isn't relevant? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #23 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. --- -- - -- --- QuoteNow, why don't you show me exactly where the law has been violated? Because based on what I've seen, it was Zelaya that was violating it. He may have been – again we’re in violent agreement there. He should be prosecuted under fair trial if there was sufficient evidence, which it appears there was. That would be in accordance with rule of law. That's not what happened. That's to what the US and rest of OAS is objecting. In answer to your question, which I’ve already addressed multiple times: otoh, extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is what happened to Mr. Zelaya. A democratically-elected head of state was removed by actions of the military during his lawful term. He was made effectively stateless without trial. You keep bringing up his politics (as viewed through a distant lens): “At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America” as justification for disregarding rule of law. Quote I am stating that the reason for US involvement is not rooted in US interests in treaties with Honduras, but with Zelaya's close ties to Chavez, and with Chavez' overt involvement in Zelaya's referendum campaign, somehow that isn't relevant? Do you have any evidence of that, i.e., what underlies the US motivation? Or is that your supposition? (As opposed to the *two* different explanations I’ve offered: (1) rule of law, & (2) traditional US real politik of basing foreign policy on US interests, including national security interests.) How do you know that? W/whom are Zelaya’s ties closer, the US or Venezuela? What are the domestic politics of Honduras? Please go back and re-read what I’ve wrote, you’re the only one who has dismissed anything as “gobbledygook.” We’re in violent agreement that Mr. Zelaya’s apparent moves to violate the Honduran Constitution, as we understand them, are not a step that we would like to see. Where we seem to differ is whether rule of law applies to all, regardless of whether one likes (I don’t) who he metaphorically hangs out or whether rule of law should be relegated to secondary consideration if one disagrees with someone’s politics. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
TomAiello 26 #7 July 7, 2009 Quote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. The Secretary of State didn't meet with Mousavi. That's a real, definite action. The reaction to the two situations are far from equivalent.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #8 July 7, 2009 >That's a real, definite action. The reaction to the two situations are far from >equivalent. I agree - but then again, the situations are far from equivalent. Like I said, if he takes action to interfere with the process (i.e. sends troops down, starts an embargo, imposes trade sanctions) then he'd be making a big mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #9 July 7, 2009 QuoteWell, if it is OK for one president to break and bend laws - why not Honduras' as well? I mean - what's good for the goose and all that. It is not okay for government to break or bend the rules. The government should not be able to do anything a private citizen cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #10 July 7, 2009 Quote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #11 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... And, Honduras is an ally of the United States. Honduras is a key member of the US-led Container Security Initiative (CSI), which was initiated under Pres GW Bush's admin. Honduras has closely cooperated with the US on counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. A whole number of other bilaterals and multilaterals proposed by the US have been supported by Honduras. Iran, otoh, is not an ally. (Also thought you didn't want US leaders meeting with Iranian leaders?) Regardless of whether I like Zelaya's policies (I don't) or you like them or any of us like him or don't like him, he was/is the democratically-elected head of state who was expelled from his country at gun point. If he is able to return to Honduras, he is likely to face prosecution. He may even *deserve* to face prosecution (sounds like he does from what I’ve read). At this point an activist Supreme Court found him guilty without trial and gave orders to the military to remove him from office and expel him from his nation-state. He has not been found guilty of anything. He may be guilty. Of all my areas of expertise, Honduran constitutional law is not among them. At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #12 July 7, 2009 Oh, how I pine for the good ole daze. The CIA gets active; the friend of our enemy commits suicide by shooting himself 12 times in the back, pausing once to re-load; the enemy of our enemy is installed in power and gives a sweetheart contract to Halliburton (or US Fruit, or whatever); he represses his people in the name of anti-Communism until most of the nation's population hates the US; then there's another coup the CIA fails to anticipate, installing another friend of our enemy; the Halliburton operation is nationalized and its assets seized; US diplomats take refuge in the Canadian Embassy; the new friend of our enemy is shown on the news kissing the leader of our enemy on both cheeks. Oh, my god, then he kissed him full on the mouth. Rinse, repeat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #13 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>we will interfere with Honduras? ?? Being "deeply concerned" isn't interfering. (He was "deeply concerned" about Iran, too.) If we send troops down there, then that would be a VERY big mistake. Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... And, Honduras is an ally of the United States. Honduras is a key member of the US-led Container Security Initiative (CSI), which was initiated under Pres GW Bush's admin. Honduras has closely cooperated with the US on counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. A whole number of other bilaterals and multilaterals proposed by the US have been supported by Honduras. I don't dispute Honduras' role in agreements with the US. QuoteIran, otoh, is not an ally. (Also thought you didn't want US leaders meeting with Iranian leaders?) My point being that after Zelaya was ousted, we have directly inserted ourselves into what was an apparent legal operation in Honduras. However, in the face of massive manipulation, and culturally similar Persians, we shy away for fear of Ayatollahs. We had our chance and President Obama had a chance to keep the stirring the pot. He blinked. It was a chance to push from the bottom-up in Iran, we did nothing while Iranian soldiers were shooting women in the streets. QuoteRegardless of whether I like Zelaya's policies (I don't) or you like them or any of us like him or don't like him, he was/is the democratically-elected head of state who was expelled from his country at gun point. The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed. http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm notes: QuoteTitle VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection. QuoteIf he is able to return to Honduras, he is likely to face prosecution. He may even *deserve* to face prosecution (sounds like he does from what I’ve read). Seems to me that Honduras doesn't want him back. QuoteAt this point an activist Supreme Court found him guilty without trial and gave orders to the military to remove him from office and expel him from his nation-state. He has not been found guilty of anything. He may be guilty. Of all my areas of expertise, Honduran constitutional law is not among them. Yours? At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. /Marg At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #14 July 7, 2009 You forgot the part where the taxpayers back home get shafted with the bill for the whole thing, and the profits go into the pockets of whoever bought the right politician. It'd be so much more honest if we just voted to give the taxpayers money directly to the big corporations who fund the political campaigns, wouldn't it? Oh, wait, that's exactly what we're doing...-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #15 July 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell, if it is OK for one president to break and bend laws - why not Honduras' as well? I mean - what's good for the goose and all that. It is not okay for government to break or bend the rules. The government should not be able to do anything a private citizen cannot. Right - like declaring war, launching cruise missiles, erecting traffic lights, issuing passports...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #16 July 8, 2009 >Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... Yeah. So? I'm all for meeting with foreign leaders, if they don't mind meeting with us. (That goes for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and France, too.) Much better than bombing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #17 July 8, 2009 Quote >Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... Yeah. So? I'm all for meeting with foreign leaders, if they don't mind meeting with us. (That goes for Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and France, too.) Much better than bombing. Except for the small detail that he had been removed from office...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #18 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. The strength of rule of law is that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate based on political agenda – even if I you or I really don’t like that agenda. And that those who are charged with crimes are tried under the rule of law for those crimes … rather than forced to become an effectively stateless person at gunpoint. If Zelaya fled from prosecution, would you support the US offering him sanctuary or support returning to face charges? Does it matter what the political leanings of a lawfully elected democratic leader are? Should it? Maybe you can make a case that it should? Has Zelaya moved to disallow use of San Pedro Sula for US counterterrorism efforts? Is he acting in ways that challenge or undermine US interests? In a Kissinger-esque real politik manner – not necessarily one that I support but one that did drive much of US Central American policy in the 1970s and 1980s – one might be able to justify support of the actions *if* Zelaya had denied US access and *if* the newly elevated President had insured access. Has anything like that happened? What overriding reason do you see justifies going against rule of law? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #19 July 8, 2009 Quote QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. The strength of rule of law is that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate based on political agenda – even if I you or I really don’t like that agenda. And that those who are charged with crimes are tried under the rule of law for those crimes … rather than forced to become an effectively stateless person at gunpoint. If Zelaya fled from prosecution, would you support the US offering him sanctuary or support returning to face charges? Does it matter what the political leanings of a lawfully elected democratic leader are? Should it? Maybe you can make a case that it should? Has Zelaya moved to disallow use of San Pedro Sula for US counterterrorism efforts? Is he acting in ways that challenge or undermine US interests? In a Kissinger-esque real politik manner – not necessarily one that I support but one that did drive much of US Central American policy in the 1970s and 1980s – one might be able to justify support of the actions *if* Zelaya had denied US access and *if* the newly elevated President had insured access. Has anything like that happened? What overriding reason do you see justifies going against rule of law? /Marg Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. We know that he will be arrested and tried if he returns to Honduras. Should he have been expelled? I don't know. Was the Congress, Courts, and Military right in removing him from power? Based on what I could find that is written in english, I believe it was correct to remove him from office, methods not withstanding. The rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #20 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuote QuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. Then either you're seeing something that I'm not, or we have very different views of what rule of law means. Did he have a trial? No. Was he democratically-elected and still within his legal term? Yes. What he may have intended to do beyond that legal term speaks to justification for charges not him being treated outside rule of law and made stateless. QuoteThe rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand. I'm tempted to quote you w/r/t having something to say but not appearing to be willing to discuss it when you dismiss issues and actions (or lack thereof) that relate directly to US interests as "gobbledyggok". If US interests aren't germane to foreign policy choices of an administration, what are? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #21 July 8, 2009 >Except for the small detail that he had been removed from office. Again - so? If Hamid Karzai is kicked out of the Afghanistan government tomorrow, and he wants to meet with us, and we have time - why not? What's so bad about talking to people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #22 July 8, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. Then either you're seeing something that I'm not, or we have very different views of what rule of law means. Did he have a trial? No. Was he democratically-elected and still within his legal term? Yes. What he may have intended to do beyond that legal term speaks to justification for charges not him being treated outside rule of law and made stateless. Quote The rest of your gobbledygook about agreements with the US are not germane to the topic at hand. I'm tempted to quote you w/r/t having something to say but not appearing to be willing to discuss it when you dismiss issues and actions (or lack thereof) that relate directly to US interests as "gobbledyggok". If US interests aren't germane to foreign policy choices of an administration, what are? /Marg You asked me if I was arguing that the rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees. I replied that based on what I've been able to read, the rule of law (in Honduras) has, in fact, been upheld. Now, why don't you show me exactly where the law has been violated? Because based on what I've seen, it was Zelaya that was violating it. The next in line of succession, Roberto Micheletti has stated that Zelaya is not welcome to return, and has in no way, indicated the Honduras would dissolve any existing treaties with any of its neighbors...indeed, it is Honduras' neighbors that have suspended treaties and memberships in organizations that are supposed to provide a diplomatic vehicle (like OAS...yet OAS has suspended Honduras' membership)... I am stating that the reason for US involvement is not rooted in US interests in treaties with Honduras, but with Zelaya's close ties to Chavez, and with Chavez' overt involvement in Zelaya's referendum campaign, somehow that isn't relevant? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #23 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAt the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. --- -- - -- --- QuoteNow, why don't you show me exactly where the law has been violated? Because based on what I've seen, it was Zelaya that was violating it. He may have been – again we’re in violent agreement there. He should be prosecuted under fair trial if there was sufficient evidence, which it appears there was. That would be in accordance with rule of law. That's not what happened. That's to what the US and rest of OAS is objecting. In answer to your question, which I’ve already addressed multiple times: otoh, extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is what happened to Mr. Zelaya. A democratically-elected head of state was removed by actions of the military during his lawful term. He was made effectively stateless without trial. You keep bringing up his politics (as viewed through a distant lens): “At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America” as justification for disregarding rule of law. Quote I am stating that the reason for US involvement is not rooted in US interests in treaties with Honduras, but with Zelaya's close ties to Chavez, and with Chavez' overt involvement in Zelaya's referendum campaign, somehow that isn't relevant? Do you have any evidence of that, i.e., what underlies the US motivation? Or is that your supposition? (As opposed to the *two* different explanations I’ve offered: (1) rule of law, & (2) traditional US real politik of basing foreign policy on US interests, including national security interests.) How do you know that? W/whom are Zelaya’s ties closer, the US or Venezuela? What are the domestic politics of Honduras? Please go back and re-read what I’ve wrote, you’re the only one who has dismissed anything as “gobbledygook.” We’re in violent agreement that Mr. Zelaya’s apparent moves to violate the Honduran Constitution, as we understand them, are not a step that we would like to see. Where we seem to differ is whether rule of law applies to all, regardless of whether one likes (I don’t) who he metaphorically hangs out or whether rule of law should be relegated to secondary consideration if one disagrees with someone’s politics. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
