If you had studied the issue for a nanosecond, you'd know. It was the perfectly legitimate enforcement of Honduran law. Not a coup at all. And since when do we support our enemies, which Zelaya and his good buddy, Chavez, most assuredly are?
And the Brazilians are meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by harboring Zelaya. Shame on them. And on Hillary C. and Obama, too, for squelching the legitimate processes Honduras implemented for getting rid of a serious problem which has plagued it for years. Esp. Hillary, that witch:
online.wsj.com
This blog, by an American expat, is very informative:
lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com
You'll learn how Honduras implemented laws to preclude the rule of caudillos, like the corrupt jackass Zelaya, and how the jackass broke them, resulting in his legitimate ouster, here:
articles.latimes.com
In Honduras, ‘coup’ was legal reaction to Zelaya
By Miguel A. Estrada
Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders June 28. The country’s military arrested President Manuel Zelaya — in his pajamas, he says — and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela, the international community swiftly condemned this so-called “coup.”
Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras — but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya’s arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya’s home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country’s attorney general. They make for interesting reading.
What you’ll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country’s borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must “succeed one another” in a “republican form of government.”
In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of re-election “shall cease forthwith” in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any “infraction” of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.
Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the unamendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude — as virtually everyone in Honduras did — that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession.
The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then said the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an “opinion survey.” The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the “survey” — and “fired” him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.
Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 — three days before he was ousted — Zelaya personally gathered a group of “supporters” and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the “survey” June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya’s arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya’s arrest by the country’s army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession.
It would seem from this that Zelaya’s arrest by the military was legal, and rather well-justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?
No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya’s arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office.
It cannot be right to call this a “coup.” Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country’s elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law.
True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.
Miguel Estrada is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington. A native Honduran, he was a member of the U.S. delegation to Zelaya’s 2006 inauguration. |
