This is just funny. Last week Congressman Bill Delahunt -- whose 10th Congressional District in Massachusetts now covers where I grew up -- was on NewsHour talking about Honduras with his colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
He described Honduras as a "banana republic" (which is a stupid claim, but not the funny part) and she took offense, as one would. She says, "I think that's an insult to the people of Honduras." And he replies, "Then I dare say that you don't -- you're not that familiar with Latin America."
Bill, Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba, and her whole life has been active in Cuban political issues. Saying she is not that familiar with Latin America is like saying you're not that familiar with pasty white Irish Catholics.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 07, 2009 11:52 PM | Email Thisdeadwood: well, Ros-Lehtinen only did that because she didn't believe it was really Obama. :-)
Saying she isn't familiar with Latin American politics is like saying Lech Walesa doesn't know much about Eastern European politics.
Posted by: Cliff on September 8, 2009 02:39 PMObama makes buddy buddy with Chavez and puts pressure on Honduras to place Zelaya back in power. It certainly makes one wonder if Obama would like to follow Chavez's pattern here. I would hope that even most Democrats would oppose this if it were to occur. Hopefully Obama is just overly sympathetic to socialists and not actually treasonist. However, we will all be watching. As has been said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Posted by: Bill H on September 8, 2009 04:22 PMIf they didn't remove him legally, then you could say it's a banana republic because they just had a coup d'etat.
The traditional banana republic is Guatemala where United Fruit got the CIA to throw out a democratically elected president back in about 1953; and Colombia, where the USA fomented rebellion in this little province called Panama to break it off and get the canal built.
"Banana republic" thus is a euphemism for "pawn of the United States."
So in that sense, today Honduras is, because I don't know of how proposing an adivsory vote about having a constitutional amendment to change term limits could ever be grounds for impeaching any political leader, much less bodily throwing him out of the country. But hey, if you can cite the Honduran constitution or law that so provides, by all means, let us in on it.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on September 8, 2009 06:59 PMIMMHO, couple the relationship of Ayers with Obama
along with Ayers attendance of the World Education Forum in Venezuela and his comments there,
along with Zelaya trying to act like a Chavez,
along with Obama accusing Honduras of a Coup rather than following their constitution,
along with Obama trying to withhold millions of dollars from the current Honduras government,
along with Obama refusing to reveal any of grades, any of his college papers, and his birth certificate,
and the result is almost irrefutable evidence of Obama and his background being so extremely suspect that he should have never been elected as our President.
(Hmmmm - wonder if I could make the sentence above any longer? :-) )
Posted by: Tim on September 8, 2009 07:05 PMNone I know of, but you understate what the President actually did, which the courts ruled was unconstitutional. So you have an executive breaking the law, and the other two branches were faced with trying to resolve the crisis the President had created.
If they didn't remove him legally, then you could say it's a banana republic because they just had a coup d'etat.
If they let him continue violating the Constitution, you could say it's a banana republic.
Funny how you say there's nothing wrong with what the President did, where you normally say that the Constitution is only what the courts say it is. And the Court said it was unconstitutional.
Of course, that's not my point. My point is Delahunt saying Ros-Lehtinen doesn't understand Latin America is ... just plain stupid.
First you say "'Banana republic' thus is a euphemism for 'pawn of the United States.'" Then you say "So in that sense, today Honduras is...". You never finished the object of "is", so I can only presume you meant "is a banana republic". However that makes no sense given that you just said that "Banana republic" thus is a euphemism for "pawn of the United States." If that is the case, then you are saying that the Obama Administration was behind throwing out Zelaya? But if so, why are they trying all they can to get him back in office, including sanctions against Honduras and their diplomats? Your argument makes no sense at all.
You also say "I don't know of how proposing an adivsory vote about having a constitutional amendment to change term limits could ever be grounds for impeaching any political leader, much less bodily throwing him out of the country." So now you are not only claiming to be a lawyer, but you are claiming to know more about Honduran Constitutional Law than the entire Honduran Supreme Court. Excuse me if I don't put much faith in your "lawyer" abilities.
Finally, characterizing this as a coup d'etat is simply ludicrous. Both the legislative and the judicial branch agreed that he was breaking the law. They warned him not to go ahead with his plans and yet he went ahead anyway. It wasn't the military's idea to throw him out and install some sort of military junta. It was the other co-equal branches of government's rulings.
You say "But hey, if you can cite the Honduran constitution or law that so provides, by all means, let us in on it." The burden is not on me to show that, the Honduran Supreme Court unanimously ruled that what he was doing was illegal. The majority were from his own party. In addition, the vast majority of the Honduran Congress also voted to remove Zelaya, including a majority of his own party.
So, no, the burden is not on me, it is on you. And you need quite a bit more than your mere statement that "I don't know of how proposing an adivsory vote about having a constitutional amendment to change term limits could ever be grounds...". What you don't know about this issue could probably fill a large phone book!
Posted by: Bill H on September 9, 2009 06:53 AMYes, actually. The President is immediately removed for even suggesting a change on term limits. That's in the Honduran Constitution.
And the Military did not remove him unilaterally. It did so on the order of the Supreme Court who was asked to order his arrest by the Attorney General.
After this, the Court's action was affirmed by roughly 120-6 vote.
That's the facts. Sorry you don't like Honduras's constitution. I thought it was "arrogant" for America to dictate to other countries. Apparently that's only true when a flaming left-winger isn't about to grasp total power against the Democratic institutions of that country.
Posted by: Cliff on September 9, 2009 07:55 AMhttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/10/opinion/oe-estrada10
Posted by: Cliff on September 9, 2009 08:00 AMAll of your questions are answered in detail in a Christian Science Monitor article by Octavio Sanchez, a Honduran attorney and former presidential adviser and minister of culture of the Republic of Honduras:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
Posted by: Patrick on September 9, 2009 08:03 AMSaying the court ruled, therefore what it did was legal, is simply avoiding the issue.
I think it's a fairly interesting and reasonable thing to do to ask these questions. Fuller answers would let us all see how legal, or not legal, the removal was. What did Zelaya do that was allegedly wrong, and what part of the law was violated, and btw, was the process followed?
Those who support what the military did have the chance now to answer those questions and explain why it's legal. Go ahead, I invite you.
I don't see anything in my 4 mintue perusal of the Honduran constitution that says "no one can push for an advisory vote on changing the constitution and if they don't we can remove him via a vote in the leg. and approval by the court."
Which means that if that's all the president did -- remember, I asked you guys, what exactly is it that he did, that was illegal? go ahead and answer, if you have one -- then it wasn't illegal. Except via the highest degree of judicial activism and implied powers and all the things conservatives say they hate.
Which means support for this action is unprincipled.
go ahead refute it by answering the questions.
What exactly did Zelaya do that was supposedly illegal and what part of the constitution did it violate?
"What you don't know about this issue could probably fill a large phone book!"
Yes, mea culpa, you caught me, I am not a Honduran lawyer! And also not a Honduran abogado! Nor a consejero!
That's why I am asking the questions.
Got answers?
And while you're at it, isn't it an interesting issue to have a constitutional provision preventing the people from changing it. doesn't that violate the notion of natural law and government by the people?
In your answers, feel free to reconcile your support of natural rights with that kind of provision, and your position that only strict interpretation is proper when there seems to be no provision in this constitution saying merely pushing for an advisory vote is itself an offense resulting in removal from office.
Maybe you have the answers. My ears are open. Maybe you can reconcile this situation with your belief that only a strict interpretation can be used and your position favoring natural law rights.
Feel free to provide a substantive response, if you have one.
PS: doing all we can to put Zelaya back in would be sending in 200,000 marines with air support. I don't see us doing that. The Obama admin. is basically accepting this situation. Though Bill has a point, yes, of course they didn't push for this coup d'etat the way the USA govt. did in Guatemala, or to detach Panama. Or when invading Nicaragua and setting up that dictatorship, or when invading Cuba and setting up their dictatorship, or when invading the D.R. So Bill, you seem correct that this situation is not like those in which the USA govt. treated those nations like banana republics and imposed rulers the people had not chosen thru legit. means.
Touche.
Let's assume that Zelaya actually did break the law -- what does the Honduran constitution provide for in that case? Does it say that the next-in-line for the Presidency should ask the head of the armed forces to forcibly remove the President from the country? I'm not an expert on this subject, but somehow I doubt that. My guess is that the legal recourse is to invoke some kind of impeachment process -- you know, something with charges, a trial, and then a public vote by leigislators who are ultimately accountable to the people. That's the kind of proceeding that might answer some of the questions people have been asking -- and it would show an adherence to the rule of law.
But legal proceedings are messy and there's no guarantee that powerful parties will get what they want out of them. So it seems that the political establishment in Honduras chose to forgo that messy route and opt for the coup instead.
Posted by: scottd on September 9, 2009 09:00 AM"The Constitution of Honduras has an article stating that the article itself and certain other articles cannot be changed in any circumstances. Article 374 of the Honduras Constitution asserts this unmodifiability, stating, "It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period."[1] This unmodifiability article has played an important role in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis."
Also Article 239 states:
"Article 239 -- No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Zelaya was going outside the constitution with his attempt to change it. The rest of the Honduras government government legally removed him from office.
So basically, your reply at 23 is totally incorrect along with Obama being totally incorrect on the same subject!
Posted by: Tim on September 9, 2009 09:14 AM... The term was coined by the American author O. Henry in his 1904 book of linked short stories, "Cabbages and Kings", set in the fictional "Anchuria", which was based on his 1896-97 stay in Honduras.
It was in Honduras that the United Fruit, the Standard Fruit, and Sam Zemurray's Cuyamel Fruit companies dominated the country's key banana export sector and support sectors such as railways. The United Fruit Company was nicknamed "The Octopus" (El Pulpo) for its willingness to involve itself in politics, sometimes violently. In 1910, Zemurray hired a gang of armed thugs including Lee Christmas from New Orleans to stage a coup in Honduras to obtain beneficial treatment from the new government. Zemurray would 23 years later take over United Fruit in a hostile bid. ...Posted by: RonK, Seattle on September 9, 2009 09:38 AM
Don't rely on everyone else to educate you--educate yourself.
Scottd, you pose a good question, but you are also under a misconception.
First the misconception--you said "Does it say that the next-in-line for the Presidency should ask the head of the armed forces to forcibly remove the President from the country?" Indeed, it was not the next in line who ordered it. The Attorney General sought an order from the Supreme Court, who, in turn, ordered the Military to make the arrest. The next in line was not the Attorney General, but the Leader of the Congress.
However, your point about whether they should have sent him out of the country is a good one. There seems to be a good argument that he should have been taken to jail and faced charges there. However, that does not mean that he was not removed from office in a completely legal manner.
It is quite obvious that this was NOT a coup. The military was following a legal order given unanimously by the Supreme Court, under the request of the Attorney General and with the vast support of the Congress. It was Zelaya who was out of bounds here--no coup was involved.
Posted by: Bill H on September 9, 2009 01:42 PMI also don't know if Zelaya was removed from office in a legal manner and I doubt if you know, either. The Supreme Court of Honduras may have ordered his removal, but my question is, under what provision of Honduran law was this specified as a legal procedure? I have no interest in debating this matter with you -- neither you nor I know enough about Honduran law to answer. It's just a question I have. My understanding is that the Honduran Constitution has provision for impeachment. Why weren't those provisions used? Inventing new law on the fly (if that was done) would seem to be one of the hallmarks of what is colloquially refered to as a banana republic.
Finally, I didn't say the next-in-line ordered Zelaya's removal. However, it's been reported that on June 26 Micheletti (next-in-line) did write to the head of the Honduran armed forces reminding him of the "Mission to be undertaken on June 28" and thanking him for his defense of the Constitution. I'm sure many people were involved in planning Zelaya's removal and the man who took his place was one of them.
So, America should unilaterally rewrite Honduran law because you don't like it? That's mindboggling coming from a supporter of someone who ran against the "arrogance" of U.S. foreign policy. It gives "arrogance" a new name.
The Honduran Constitution is clear, if you even suggest changing term limits, you are done. The Supreme Court, at the request of the Attorney General, found that he violated that and ordered him removed. He was then removed.
You don't like it? Become a Honduran citizen and vote for a new parliament so THEY can change the law, as allowed by the Honduran constitution.
Posted by: Cliff on September 9, 2009 06:28 PMI'm not the only one asking these questions. A Honduran Deputy Attorney General has launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force rather than charged in court. I'm guessing he understands Honduran law better than you or me.
Posted by: scottd on September 9, 2009 06:47 PMLatin American countries have had a long history of dictators taking control of countries (such as Chavez has done in Venezuela). Honduras specifically wrote their constitution to avoid the very thing that Zelaya tried to do--get the constitution changed to allow him to serve more than one term. The constitution says in Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." The Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya did indeed propose its reform and thus he immediately ceased in his function as president.
I guess those are the kind of questions that due process is meant to address...
Posted by: scottd on September 9, 2009 08:32 PMNo need to accept anything from "those who seized power". The 15-0 Supreme Court decision pretty much says it all, especially since this includes a majority from Zelaya's own party. The "seize power" comment is really quite amusing actually, since it was Zelaya who was trying to do this. The president of the Congress who is now acting as president will only be in power until a new election takes place in November. Not much oomph to that seizing of power is there?
Also, the legal reviews included in the LA Times article and in the CSMonitor article noted in previous posts were not done by "those who seized power". They were done by a prominent American attorney of Honduran descent and a Honduran lawyer and former presidential advisor and Minister of Culture.
"You cited the Honduran Constitution Article 239, implying that Zelaya immediately lost the Presidency by proposing reform of the constitutional ban on consecutive terms. Is that what he did?" Yes, that is what he did. And the Supreme Court ruled 15-0 that he did, and they were in agreement with the Attorney General, as well as with the vast majority of Congress [who voted 122-6 that he should be removed from office].
There was no real disagreement in Honduran government as to what was happening. Hell, we can't get this kind of agreement in this country about pretty much anything.
I don't know why you all are arguing in so ridiculous a manner in favor of a Chavez wannabe. Anyone who believes in the rule of law and likes a Democratic Republic should be praising Honduras for the way they have protected their Democratic Republic. The defense of Zelaya is quite telling...
Posted by: Bill on September 10, 2009 07:53 AMI can't figure it out either. If I had to guess, Obama made a mistake of calling it a coup initially, and he's afraid of the political fallout if he admits he's wrong (ironic, given what he said about Bush).
Either that or he's actually as radical of a left winger as the Wrights and Pflegers he use to hang with. I didn't believe that even though I voted against him, but his defense of Zelaya makes me sorta wonder.
Posted by: Cliff on September 10, 2009 10:03 AMIt's strange that same Congress wasn't able to achieve such agreement when they attempted to impeach Zelaya before the coup. Do you think the recent display of military force to setttle a politcal and legal dispute might have changed their minds?
I don't know why you all are arguing in so ridiculous a manner in favor of a Chavez wannabe.
Your comment might make some sense if you could show where I have argued in favor of Zelaya.
Posted by: scottd on September 10, 2009 10:06 AMThere wasn't a coup.
Do you think the recent display of military force to setttle a politcal and legal dispute might have changed their minds?
Ummmm. The Supreme Court settled the legal dispute. And there was no more serious political dispute at that point.
Well, I was referring to you as well as the supposed "lawyer", but lets just look at what you have said or argued:
1. You have now called this legal removal from office a "coup" a number of times.
2. You have referred to the acting president [the next in the legal line of succession] as one of "those who seized power".
3. You referred to the removal as "recent display of military force to setttle a politcal and legal dispute".
4. You incorrectly implied that the current acting president gave the order to the military to remove Zelaya when you said referring to the Honduran Constitution "Does it say that the next-in-line for the Presidency should ask the head of the armed forces to forcibly remove the President from the country?"
5. You said, referring to the violation of Article 239, that "My understanding is that he never proposed to change that provision...", even though the Honduran Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with you.
So, yes, I would say that you are arguing in favor of Zelaya, and I would wager that most people reading this would think so too.
Bottom line, there is NOTHING to back up any assertion that what took place in Honduras was a coup. It was a legal transition of power and the transition will continue with the presidential election in November. This very well might not have happened if Zelaya had been allowed to continue in office--he was attempting to follow the Chavez model of converting a Democratically elected president into a dictator for life.
Posted by: Bill on September 10, 2009 11:22 AMI agree. His defense of Zelaya as well as his apparant closeness to Chavez is unsettling.
Posted by: Bill on September 10, 2009 11:26 AMYour cognitive defects and those of others who might read this blog mean nothing to me. In fact, I have said nothing in favor of Zelaya. To make it easier for you, here's what I have said about Zelaya's actions: "I'm not denying that Zelaya was out of bounds -- I wouldn't know." How you can read support of Zelaya into that is a mystery to me.
his apparant closeness to Chavez is unsettling.
His apparent closeness to Chavez is a figment of your imagination.
So you deny he worked with Chavez on heating oil?
Wow.
Delusional as always, pudge...
Posted by: scottd on September 10, 2009 01:07 PMUh, I didn't mention that statement as one of those supporting Zelaya. What I mentioned from #39 was:
"1. You have now called this legal removal from office a "coup" a number of times.
2. You have referred to the acting president [the next in the legal line of succession] as one of "those who seized power".
3. You referred to the removal as "recent display of military force to setttle a politcal and legal dispute".
4. You incorrectly implied that the current acting president gave the order to the military to remove Zelaya when you said referring to the Honduran Constitution "Does it say that the next-in-line for the Presidency should ask the head of the armed forces to forcibly remove the President from the country?"
5. You said, referring to the violation of Article 239, that "My understanding is that he never proposed to change that provision...", even though the Honduran Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with you."
Let me make it clear. Calling is a "coup", is a statement in favor of Zelaya. Referring to the succession as "seizing power" is a statement in favor of Zelaya. Calling it a "display of military force to setttle a politcal and legal dispute" is a statement in favor of Zelaya. Implying that the acting president ordered the removal of Zelaya and referring to him as one of "those who seized power" is a statement in favor of Zelaya.
For someone who denies he is arguing in favor of Zelaya, you sure spend a lot of time arguing in favor of Zelaya.
Posted by: Bill on September 10, 2009 01:48 PMNo. Absolutely no show of military force was ever made. A few guys with guns showed up, took Zelaya to a plane and sent him off.
NO member of the military ever attempted to seize power. NO member of the military ever claimed power. NO military group ever marched on ANY institution except Zelaya's house, where they were ordered to go by the Supreme Court.
It is indisputable that no member of the Military ever gained any power, or attempted to gain any power, because of Zelaya's ouster. He was replaced by a member of Parliament of Zelaya's own party because the Vice President had already resigned.
Frankly, if you actually think there was a military coup, you have a political reason for doing so. There IS no logical or legal reason for thinking so. There was no violence, no laws broken (with the possible exception of actually forcing him to leave the country as opposed to merely trying him for treason), and no member of the military gained power. It was a purely legal and political process.
Posted by: Cliff on September 10, 2009 03:26 PMWhich is my delusion? That Delahunt did it, or that you deny it?
In November 2005, he met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and engineered a deal in which Venezuela would supply winter home heating oil at a 40 percent price reduction to thousands of low-income Massachusetts residents. The deal was carried out via the Venezuelan owned Citgo, and brought accusations that Delahunt was assisting an anti-American leader.
Obviously, he did it. And all that was said here is that he has "apparant closeness to Chavez." Which he does, in fact, have.
So please, enlighten me to what I am delusional about. Share with the us all.
Your delusion is in thinking I ever said you did.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2009 04:12 PMGo trace through the comment thread and see if you can figure out who I was referring to in my comment @41. Let me know if you need any help...
Posted by: scottd on September 10, 2009 04:17 PM