September 25, 2009
Zelaya's removal in Honduras - LEGAL!

Well well, once again we see the man-child in office, the Obamassiah, has firmly and quite deliberately screwed up. This time, it's about the removal of Zelaya in Honduras.

Most of the leftist posters at SP were firmly in favor of Obama's position regarding this "coup". Why, it was terrible, and we should do whatever we can to get Zelaya back in power!

And those same Slavery Party fanatics hold up the Congressional Research Service in defense of mandates, taxation, and the like. Why, it's the greatest accumulation of legal minds around is the general implication!

Well, now we see the truth: the CRS has stated unequivocally that Zelaya's removal from power was perfectly legal and constitutional under the laws and constitution of Honduras! Here's a great summary of the report.

So, will the Marxist posters:

A. Decry Obama's incorrect position/stance on Honduras?
B. Decry the accuracy and integrity of the CRS?
C. Ignore this completely and hope this sordid example of leftist lunacy goes away?

My bet is firmly on C. But maybe some of those Obama acolytes will come here and prove me wrong?

Posted by 6p010536f20fe0970c at September 25, 2009 09:17 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Another lie. In that "great summary", it states:

The military did not act properly in forcibly expatriating Zelaya. According to the CRS report and other news stories, Honduran authorities are investigating their decision, which the military justified at the time as a means of preventing bloodshed. In fact, Zelaya should have been given a trial, and if convicted of seeking reelection, he would have lost his citizenship. But he is still a citizen now, and the Constitution forbids the expatriation of Honduran citizens by their government.

It's a grand mess. However, it's hypocritical for idiot conservatives to claim to be "followers of the rules" when they merely pick and choose between the rules they follow.

Posted by: demo kid on September 25, 2009 03:29 PM
2. As usual, SPFA, you miss the entire point. The removal was COMPLETELY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. He should have been arrested rather than deported, but removing him was not a problem.

Nothing like you to obfuscate that your fellow marxists got this wrong. All the hand-wringing of your ilk over the "coup" only to find out there wasn't a coup, and that the removal of Zelaya was legal and constitutional.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2009 11:43 PM
3. @2: Again, YOU'RE missing the point. An arrest and trial is called for in this case, not deportation without a trial. You yourself said it... so the military broke the law!

But hey, it must be great being a conservative, when you can claim to be defending "law and order" simply by ignoring the rules that are inconvenient. :) Is it painful to be such a hypocrite?

Posted by: demo kid on September 26, 2009 12:51 PM
4. So SPFA, is it still a coup as the White House so vigorously claimed?

Look - the removal of Zelaya was correct and constitutional. The authority and process to order his removal was OK. How it was executed may have been botched (it's up to the Honduran Supreme Court to decide), but this was no coup.

The Obama Administration got all parts of this wrong with their claims of coup, demands to return Zelaya to his office, and their yanking of visas for Honduran citizens. Their inexperience and ignorance shone through brightly!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 26, 2009 10:45 PM
5. @4: They say it was botched, I say it was botched, you say it was botched. We're all in agreement... and THAT element is what makes it a coup d'etat.

If Congress had decided to issue articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton or George Bush, and the US military shot them or exiled them to Canada instead of standing trial, what would you call it? The Honduran military operated in a way that they should not have done, forcing him out of his office and his country themselves instead of bringing him to court. They themselves exercised their power to change the government. It's the very definition of a coup.

Hey, Zelaya isn't the best character in the world (and I didn't say he was)... but call things for what they are.

Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2009 10:16 AM
6. I see... So if the Congress and Supreme Court legally and Constitutionally order the military to remove the President, it's a coup because the military moved him out of the country, rather than just arrest him?

Interesting definition of a coup, SPFA! A country follows its laws. The legislative and judicial branches do everything correct, and in executing the orders the military screws up then it suddenly becomes a coup. Got it.

If anything, the military gave Zelaya MORE benefit than he would have had if they actually arrested him! He'll be arrested if he returns to Honduras; by deporting him, he's still a free man. How giving a man his freedom by deporting him is a coup - essentially giving an option that was not present in the original order - is a mystery to me.

And note that the new President and cabinet are lawfully positioned, did not take the country by force, and followed the Constitutionally prescribed solution.

Yet it's a coup. Got it.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 27, 2009 10:40 AM
7. @6: The legislative and judicial branches do everything correct, and in executing the orders the military screws up then it suddenly becomes a coup.

Yes! Nice to see that we're in agreement. That's EXACTLY the case. Unless there was a trial, there was a coup. Look in the dictionary, because that's the exact definition.

How giving a man his freedom by deporting him is a coup - essentially giving an option that was not present in the original order - is a mystery to me.

So you're supporting breaking the law, then?

And note that the new President and cabinet are lawfully positioned, did not take the country by force, and followed the Constitutionally prescribed solution.

The new President may be in the line of succession, but the country was technically taken by force, and did NOT follow the prescribed solution. You yourself admitted that.

It may not be a "coup" in that the government is still a civilian one by elected officials, but it is a "coup" in that the President was removed by force without a trial. Heck, even the military recognizes that they broke the law!

Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2009 12:55 PM
8. Broke the law executing the LEGAL turnover of power. It was not a coup, it was LEGAL action throughout, no violation of the Constitution, not led by the military.

But you go right ahead and whitewash the actions of the White House...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 28, 2009 07:25 AM
9. @8: But you go right ahead and whitewash the actions of the White House...

By saying that the courts and NOT the military should remove a president from office?

Stop trying to twist this to your own pathetic gain. Objecting to the military overextending their power in a Latin American country is not unreasonable. Again, they broke the law -- even by their own admission -- regardless of what Zedaya was accused of.

But hey, in your mind, the rules only apply to people you don't like, right?

Posted by: demo kid on September 28, 2009 02:45 PM
10. @8: But you go right ahead and whitewash the actions of the White House...

By saying that the courts and NOT the military should remove a president from office?

Stop trying to twist this to your own pathetic gain. Objecting to the military overextending their power in a Latin American country is not unreasonable. Again, they broke the law -- even by their own admission -- regardless of what Zedaya was accused of.

But hey, in your mind, the rules only apply to people you don't like, right?

Posted by: demo kid on September 28, 2009 02:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?