U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras' Zelaya

[Guero]

Source: Reuters

Reuters
U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras' Zelaya
Wed Aug 5, 2009 9:10pm EDT

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. policy on Honduras' political crisis is not aimed at supporting any particular individual, the State Department said in a new letter that implied softening support for ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

The letter to Republican Senator Richard Lugar contained criticism of Zelaya, saying the left-leaning former leader had taken provocative actions before his removal by the army.

It also indicated severe U.S. economic sanctions were not being considered against the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti, installed after the June 28 military coup.

Zelaya's ouster has led foreign governments and multinational lenders to freeze some aid programs to the impoverished country and spurred protests at home. Demonstrations turned violent again on Wednesday.

"Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual. Rather, it is based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations," Richard Verma, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter.

"We have rejected calls for crippling economic sanctions and made clear that all states should seek to facilitate a solution without calls for violence and with respect for the principle of nonintervention," he said. The letter was dated Tuesday and obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5746J720090806

---

As military violence increases against pro-democracy demonstrators in Honduras, the Obama administration is now back-peddaling to appease US corporate interests and the Republican Party.

The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to the coup in Honduras as it begins to project military strength in South America by way of Colombia. THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. This issue will be moot by late January, 2010

[Guero]

2. No, it won't be over by 01/2010 - whatever that means?

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Yes it will. Zelaya's term will be over and the newly elected President will take office then

[Bacchus39]

4. yeah, it can't come soon enough for Honduras n/t

s

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bacchus39]

7. they better have an election n/t

s

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. What will the solution be after January?

Zelaya's term will be over so he will no longer be President. Who will be President then?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Why...Zelaya's party will most likely remain in power, as it is today

Also bear in mind he was removed from office by their supreme court who ordered him arrested.

[EFerrari]

28. Kidnapping and deposing sitting presidents is not legal in Honduras.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. Their supreme court and national assembly endorsed his removal from office

The only undisputed illegal act was expelling him from the country

[AlphaCentauri]

66. after he was removed from office

his removal was illegal, soldiers can't remove a president from office and he never violated the constitution. He was conducting a public opinion poll not trying to change the constitution.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. The highest judicial authority in Honduras said he did and the National Assembly agreed

Both dominated by his political party. Not sure who would have standing to overrule that.

[roody]

78. practicing for Obama?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Why would the supreme court and legislature want to rule on Obama?

[roody]

83. practicing coups

Why not oust Obama as well?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Non Sequiter, Zelaya was removed by the court, not the army

[roody]

85. Wrong. The army came to his house and kidnapped him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. After the court removed him from office and issued an arrest warrant

What was clearly illegal was the deportation.

Some are arguing that the court had no authority to remove him from office, however there is no higher authority on Honduran law than their Supreme Court. Where does on go to appeal?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Pretty much. Hopefully the new president will get the arrest warrant rescinded,but Zelaya is never

going to be president again.

[roody]

76. not for the hondurenos

[Vidar]

5. Welcome to DU. Good post. Just ignore the corporate fascist glee club.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

8. The ideal fascist 'election'!

The elected president's home shot up by the military, dragged out of his bed at gunpoint, flown out of the country...
Junta appoints a president...
Martial law...
Leftist or neutral TV/radio stations surrounded with troops, shut down, reporters of all kinds roughed up, arrested, deported...
Leftists can't go out after dark and sometimes during the day, at the whim of the military...
Over a thousand political prisoners rounded up, their fates unknown, all leftists...
Ten dead, as a lesson to others...
Some tortured leftists' bodies dumped where they can be found--Fascist Politics 101...
Home invasions, leftists dragged out, arrested...
Tires shot out of busloads of people going to leftist marches and protests, people dragged out, detained, made to walk home...
Military twice open fires with live ammunition on peaceful protestors, several get bullets through the head...
Junta purges government agencies of anyone who supports the elected president...
Community activists, union leaders, priest advocates of the poor, political candidates--in hiding for fear of fascist death squads...
Junta controlling all levers of government...

Then, yeah, let people 'vote.' Ha-ha.

-------------------------------------

It's interesting that DUers who help trumpet the fascist disinformation campaign against other elected leftist leaders--notably President Chavez in Venezuela--appear to believe that elections under martial law are just fine. Who cares if leftists have trouble mounting political campaigns under these conditions? Who cares if voters are afraid? Who cares if the poor majority, already handicapped--not just by martial law, but by millions of US taxpayer dollars being poured into rightwing groups in Honduras, through John McCain's US taxpayer-funded "International Republican Institute," and other USAID-NED budgets, as well as covert budgets, and private money--can't be heard, can't afford to campaign, are afraid to leave their houses?

Strange creatures, "Blue Dogs."

[Guero]

10. Blue dogs? We used to call them Dixiecrats.

Unfortunately not all left the Democratic Party. These flea bitten mangy muts are doing their best to block the road to building a more progressive social-democratic party.

[Zhade]

38. Some of them on this very thread, in fact.

Useless douchebags, the lot of them.

[AlphaCentauri]

67. The election will be the legitimization of the military coup n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. 'Cept it wasn't a military coup. He was removed from office by the Honduran Supreme Court

[Boku-Wa]

87. Sooo wrong! On July 3 the Miami Herald published the interview

with Honduran "army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it."

"We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us."

Go to http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html for the complete story.

Somebody owes us an apology.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. That is correct, it was a crime to deport him. It does not say it was a crime to have arrested him

after the Supreme Court removed him from office

[Boku-Wa]

90. Professor, you did not read the article very well. It says that

"army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it."

So the ARMY made the decision, not the Supreme Court AND they circumvented the law when they did that. Taking him to Costa Rica was just icing on the cake.

Oy vey!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. It is not wise to disect words on what is clearly a translation at some point

Multiple reports support what I posted in terms of the court removing him from office as the seminal event. Even the Maxists and the OAS have agreed with the time line of events. They sharply disagree with the interpretations taken and the decisions made by the Honduran Supreme Court. Everyone agrees at this point that it was illegal to exile him.

As the article cited in the OP said, there also there seems to be a change in the administration's positions. Similar one here: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537207260360 also indicating that State Dept is also backing off.

[Boku-Wa]

93. You need to explain why Zelaya should have been ousted

in the first place.

I suggest you go to Jules Siegel's article in the Huffington Post on July 13 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-supreme-court-it_b_230621.html>.

Siegel is fluent in Spanish and has reviewed key documents. He is critial of Zelaya's decisions, but he does not believe the removal was Constitutional and provides the following support for this conclusion:

1) Zelaya proposed an encuesta or survey - "Encuesta de Opinión Pública Convocatoria Asamblea Nacional Consituyente (Survey of Public Opinion Convoking a National Constitutional Convention) - not a binding referendum. It would have been carried out the "National Institute of Statistics, not a legally authorized electoral body, using a survey form, not a ballot."

2)The survey was a protected activity under the Honduran Constitution - even after the Congress passed a law 5 DAYS BEFORE THE SURVEY - to require that referendums be conducted no earlier than 180 days before a regular election.

Siegel writes, "President Zelaya had ample power to carry out the survey under the Citizen Participation Law of 2006. Five days before the survey was to be put before the people, Congress passed a law forbidding referendums and plebiscites (another electoral process) within 180 days of an election. The law did not mention encuestas. Furthermore, the constitution specifically protects freedom of research.

According to Siegel, "Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress had the power to remove him from office ..." However, IF HE HAD actually violate a law - ie., promote a legally binding referendum to extend his stay in office - Siegel says it "appears he could have been detained and tried for criminal conduct by a special tribunal made up of Supreme Court justices." An interesting side note is that this Constitution midwifed by a military dictatorship only provides immunity from prosecution for one crime - "acts of war committed by military personnel."

3) The claim that Zelaya was trying to extend his presidency, therefore violating the constitution is not supported by fact or reason. The SURVEY would have been conducted at the SAME TIME AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. There is NO WAY he could have extended his term.

However, IF the survey had been conducted and won wide support AND if Congress convened a Constitutional Convention AND if said Convention proposed changes to allow more than 1 term for a president AND if the change was finally adopted AND if Zelaya ran again for office ...... Well, I tried to make this as simple as possible and hope you get the drift.

BTW, the current version of the Honduran constitution was written in 1982 just BEFORE Honduras returned to civilian rule. And this constitution has been modified 165 times since 1982. Progressive Hondurans have supported modifying elements of the Constitution for years, as they believed it had undemocratic provisions. Zelaya was advancing their interests with the survey.

Siegel also reported that Micheletti did try to change the reelection clauses of the Constitution in October 1982. "On Oct. 24, 1982 various congressmen lead by Roberto Micheletti himself tried to introduce legislation calling for a constitutional convention and called for the suspension of articles 373, 374 and 374 which forbid modifying clauses concerning reelection, changing the national borders and other issues that are "set in stone."

You may be gleeful that the Obama administration has now abandoned promoting Zelaya's return to office, but this isn't he ed of the story.

The take home message is that US foreign policy continues to promote the interests of the corporate elite and US hegemony. Democracy as an issue is pure window dressing for consumption in the home market, because very few believe it outside the US.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. I will defer to the highest authority on Honduran law, their Supreme Court who did the ousting

There are lots of columns on all sides, but their Supreme cout, made up of a majority of his party members, and their National Assembly, also with a plurality of his party both agreed he had.

I am not gleeful at the current administration change so much as annoyed at those who have not read the timeline and background to realize this was not your basic military takeover. Clearly both sides have dirty hands.

[Boku-Wa]

95. Nice cop-out. It's obvious you're motivated by ideology, not

reason. You have no idea what they can or can't do legally, but are willing to believe on the basis of MSM articles - blind faith - that it was legitimate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. No copout, I am willing to accept the ruiling of highest judicial authority in the matter, that is

the height of reason. Here is a quote from one of those MSM articles...

The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.

The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

[Boku-Wa]

97. So, continue to believe the lies being spread that have turned

the coup into simple "legalese". The Honduran Supreme Court said so, therefore it must be true. Guess you must be the only "progressive" who believes Bush won the 2000 election called by the US Supreme Court - and split neatly across party lines.

The real issues have to do with the minor changes Zelaya had begun to make, like the minimum wage, which rankled the inbred and anti-democraic oligarchy. I've been to Honduras and I've seen the urban and rural poverty that gives people no hope.

The Institute for Policy Studies has a nice background on the issue at http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/hypocrisy_and_the_honduran_coup. Here's a section that highlights he inequality in that society. This is what explains the recent action against Zelaya.

"The mind-numbing discussion of "legally authorized behavior" has omitted reference to conditions in Honduras. In 2006, the United Nations Development Program described Honduras as suffering "profound social inequalities, with very high levels of poverty, and with an insufficient economic growth where the population had a relative dissatisfaction with the results of democracy." The report claimed 15% of rural Hondurans have a 40 years or less life expectancy and 20.4% of the adult population remain illiterate. The UNDP concluded that "the time for change is now. " (p. 5, 21).

A 2003 report showed the richest 10 percent still netted 50 times more than the poorest 10th. 86.3% of the Honduran rural population lived in poverty; 71.3% of urban dwellers qualified as poverty-stricken. 67.2% of the children under the age of 5 were malnourished. (J. MacDonald, Expresión de la pobreza en la ciudad, Reunión Grupo de Expertos sobre Pobreza Urbana en America Latina y el Caribe, 27-28 de Enero 2003, p 4-5.)

In 2006, Manuel Zelaya won the presidency. He made the UNDP report a central part of his agenda for change. His social program, not an ambiguous Constitutional interpretation, became the root of his "issue" with the governing oligarchy — a dozen families who control economics and social, cultural and political institutions. They also dominate the media. A 2008 State Department Human Rights Report acknowledged: "A small number of powerful business magnates with intersecting commercial, political, and family ties owned most of the country's news media. Powerful magnates strongly influenced the news agenda and thereby elections and political decisions." (U.S. Department of State, 2008 Human Rights Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009.)

Until Zelaya tried to bring real democracy into the governing equation, Honduras' elite with U.S. banking and corporate backing had found a seemingly perfect recipe: people vote but don’t change anything. Congress and Courts belong to the educated (rich and powerful) who also control the military in cooperation with the U.S. government. Washington provided aid; the School of the Americas trains Honduran officers in proper conduct — torturing enemies and making coups. "Since the 1980s, the Honduran army breathes through the noses of its US advisers." (ALAI AMLATINA, July 10, 2009)"

Change you can believe in. A lie.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. So having lost the point that it is was not a coup, you want to move on to social issues

[Boku-Wa]

101. Don't you wish! You haven't provided any concrete information

to back your coup-PR mediated 'opinions'.

You refuse to comment on Siegel's reading of the Honduran Constitution and the planned survey.

You refuse to consider the comments by the Army lawyer regarding the illegality of removing Zelaya from office.

And then you deny the relevance of the social context of the coup.

You're a 'professor'? I haven't seen this much intellectual honesty and curiosity since Dubya was in office.

Bueno suerte!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. Sigel has no standing, and the arguments he makes have been better done by others

*THE* authority is their Supreme Court, just like ours. If foreign commentators do not like a SCOTUS decision, how much of voice do they get and why should any American care?

The social situation in all of Latin America is important, but it does not change the time lines.

[Boku-Wa]

105. Really? You continue to post comments wihout any supporting

evidence. Not terribly professorial, 'professor'.

Please provide a reference that refutes Siegel's argument or the specific points he raised, because I would love to read it. I won't hold my breath because I'm certain you can't do it.

BTW, you conveniently refused to answer the question regarding the SCOUTS decision that gave the 2000 election to Bush. Please explain your support for that one. It's been a very dull day and I could use a good laugh.

[AlphaCentauri]

100. Here is the Honduran Constitution

ARTICULO 2.- La Soberanía corresponde al Pueblo del cual emanan todos los Poderes del Estado que se ejercen por representación.

La soberanía del Pueblo podrá también ejercerse de manera directa, a través del Plebiscito y el Referendo.

La suplantación de la Soberanía Popular y la usurpación de los poderes constituidos se tipifican como delitos de Traición a la Patria. La responsabilidad en estos casos es imprescriptible y podrá ser deducida de oficio o a petición de cualquier ciudadano.
* Modificado por Decreto 295/1993.

ARTICULO 3.- Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman funciones o empleos públicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitución y las leyes establecen. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional.

ARTICULO 4.- La forma de gobierno es republicana, democrática y representativa. Se ejerce por tres poderes: Legislativo, Ejecutivo y Judicial, complementarios e independientes y sin relaciones de subordinación.

La alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la República es obligatoria.

La infracción de esta norma constituye delito de traición a la Patria.

ARTICULO 5.- El gobierno debe sustentarse en el principio de la democracia participativa del cual se deriva la integración nacional, que implica participación de todos los sectores políticos en la administración pública, a fin de asegurar y fortalecer el progreso de Honduras basado en la estabilidad política y en la conciliación nacional.

A efecto de fortalecer y hacer funcionar la democracia participativa se instituyen como mecanismos de consulta a los ciudadanos el referéndum y el plebiscito para asuntos de importancia fundamental en la vida nacional.

Una ley especial aprobada por dos terceras partes de la totalidad de los diputados del Congreso Nacional, determinará los procedimientos, requisitos y demás aspectos necesarios para el ejercicio de las consultas populares. El referéndum se convocará sobre una Ley Ordinaria o una norma constitucional o su reforma aprobadas para su ratificación o desaprobación por la ciudadanía.

El plebiscito se convocará solicitando de los ciudadanos un pronunciamiento sobre aspectos constitucionales, legislativos o administrativos, sobre los cuales los Poderes Constituidos no han tomado ninguna decisión previa.

Por iniciativa de por los menos diez (10) Diputados del Congreso Nacional, del Presidente de la República en resolución del Consejo de Secretarios de Estado o del seis por ciento (6%) de los ciudadanos, inscritos en el Censo Nacional Electoral, habilitados para ejercer el sufragio, mediante sus firmas y huellas dactilares debidamente comprobadas por el Tribuna Supremo Electoral, el Congreso Nacional conocerá y discutirá dichas peticiones, y si las aprobara con el voto afirmativo de las dos terceras partes de la totalidad de sus miembros; aprobará un Decreto que determinará los extremos de la consulta, ordenando al Tribunal Supremo Electoral, convocar, organizar y dirigir las consultas a los ciudadanos señaladas en los párrafos anteriores.

El ejercicio del sufragio en las consultas ciudadanas es obligatoria. No será objeto de referendum o plebiscito los proyectos orientados a reformar el Artículo 374 de esta Constitución.

Asimismo no podrán utilizarse las referidas consultas para asuntos relacionados con cuestiones tributarias, crédito público, amnistías, moneda nacional, presupuestos, tratados y convenciones internacionales y conquistas sociales.

Corresponde al Tribunal Supremo Electoral, informar en un plazo no mayor a diez (10) días al Congreso Nacionial los resultados de dichas consultas. El resultado de las consultas ciudadanas será de onbligatorio cumplimiento:

a) Si participan por lo menos el cincuenta y uno por ciento (51%) de los ciudadanos inscritos en el Censo Nacional Electoral al momento de practicarse la consulta; y,

b) Si el voto afirmativo logra la mayoría de votos válidos.

Si el resultado de la votación no es afirmativo, la consulta sobre los mismos temas no podrá realizarse en el siguiente período de Gobierno de la República. El Congreso Nacional ordenará la puesta en vigencia de las normas que resulten como consecuencia de la consulta mediante procedimiento constitucional de vigencia de la ley. No procede el veto presidencial en los casos de consulta por medio de referéndum o plebiscito. En consecuencia, el Presidente de la República ordenará la promulgación de las normas aprobadas.

* Modificado por Decreto 242/2003 y Ratificado por Decreto 177/2004

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html

[Boku-Wa]

102. Yes, google is a very nice search engine.

[SeriousEbony]

14. The unaddressed illegal actions by Zelaya against their constitution is an issue

If they could resolve that problem then more support for Zelaya would be addressed. It's hard to show support
for someone that has violated their very own laws.

[Peace Patriot]

15. "Violated their very own laws"--according to whom? This rightwing junta?

Here's the entire resolution Zelaya proposed for an advisory vote of the people:

"Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

http://www.borev.net/2009/06/national_news_outlets_bring_th.html

It would not even have had the force of law--just an opinion poll, really, on whether or not Hondurans want reform. Latin Americans do this frequently--rewrite their Constitutions. Hundreds of new constitutions discussed in constituent assemblies, voted on by the people, over the last century, and several recently (notably in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador). It is not an unusual process in Latin America, and it is perfectly legal under the current Honduran Constitution.

The Honduran junta is lying that this "violated their very own laws." They have claimed that Zelaya's intention was to lift the term limit on the president through this constituent assembly process, but, a) the vote he proposed says nothing about that, b) he denies that intention, and c) constituent assemblies take a long time--several years at least--and involve many people and many issues--he would be long out of office before any such issue would have come up for discussion and hammering out in the constituent assembly.

Trying to lift the term limit on the president would have been a violation of the current Constitution, but he did not do that. That provision of the Constitution was written as the result of military juntas in Honduras during the Reagan reign of terror in Central America. It was supposedly a caution against juntas ("strongmen," military dictators) seizing power and not letting go. It is probably outmoded (no term limit on the president is not inherently bad--our own FDR* ran for and won four terms in office, and many democratic heads of government do not have term limits), but, in any case, Zelaya did not propose this, and they shot up his house, and dragged him out of bed at gunpoint, and put him on a plane with blackened windows to another country, and declared martial law, and are now terrorizing the country, because of their presumption of Zelaya's intention??!!

They are lying! This is a "talking point" cocked up in some rightwing 'think tank' in Washington DC--probably John McCain's US taxpayer funded "International Republican Institute" which has poured $43 million of your money and my money into rightwing groups in Honduras!

--------------------------

*(Our own Founders opposed term limits as anti-democratic--the people should be able to vote for whomever they want in office--and we had no term limit on the president until the 1950s, when the Republicans rammed it through in order to prevent any "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and in order to begin to dismantle FDR's "New Deal" which they have made considerable progress in doing. The 2-term limit on the president was an anti-FDR measure. The rich have money and power. The poor have time--it takes time to undo the untoward power of the rich, and to create an egalitarian, progressive society. And when the poor majority is able to elect a leader who actually represents their interests, they will keep electing him, to serve the interests of the majority. That's what term limits are designed to defeat--the will of the majority.)

[SeriousEbony]

16. Tell it to their Supreme Court. They have the final say

People must follow the rule of law otherwise you have chaos. Zalaya was found guilty by their
Supreme Court. We have to follow the law here and they should be no different.

[Peace Patriot]

20. "Zelaya was found guilty by their Supreme Court"???

When was the trial? What was his defense? Who was his lawyer?

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? You get arrested, and, if you're rich enough, you make bail, hire an attorney and defend yourself against whatever charges have been made against you. You have that right. The arresting authority has to prove your guilt in a fair trial. When was Zelaya's trial?

They shot up his house, dragged him from his bed at gunpoint and put him on a plane with darkened windows to another country (all with the US military--a large presence in Honduras, that works closely with the Honduran military-- remaining perfectly silent, by the way), and declared martial law.

What does this tell us about the legitimacy of the charges against Zelaya?

He has twice tried to return to Honduras, where the junta says they will arrest him. The junta put military tanks on the airport runway, to prevent him from landing. They then lined a land route he tried to take back into the country, with military troops and vehicles. He had to turn back to prevent violence against his supporters. But there he was. He stepped into the country. Why didn't they arrest him and whisk him away in helicopter to "face the charges" against him in a court of law?

The answer: 1) The charges are bogus and they know it, and 2) This is a power struggle within the Honduran oligarchy, between the entrenched rich (the junta) and an advocate of the poor majority (President Zelaya--once a member of the oligarchy). If the junta had any interest in "the rule of law," they would be following the "rule of law." They would have arrested him, tried him and convicted him, in as fair a trial as they are capable of. But "the rule of law" is not on their agenda. Martial law is--keeping illegitimate control of the country, against the interests of the poor majority.

One more important point: Since when can the democratically elected president of a country be arrested (let alone rousted out of bed at gunpoint and flown out of the country!)? We have a "balance of power" situation, here. The president first has to be impeached by a representative body of the people--a national assembly or congress. He cannot be summarily arrested or jailed by another branch of government. In this country, anyway, the Supreme Court cannot issue an arrest warrant against the President. Nor can Congress. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are equal powers. We've seen great transgressions against that "balance of power" under the Bush Junta, going the other way--the executive abusing its powers in many ways, including Bush writing his own laws with "executive signing statements" (--the Constitution gives that right exclusively to Congress). We've also seen the Supreme Court abuse its power as to state election law (Florida 2000). (That, too, is a Congressional power--they are the sole ultimate power on settling election disputes in national elections.)

In a democracy, the president IS subject to the laws of the land (in case we may have forgotten that), but the procedure for holding him accountable must respect the Constitutional "balance of powers" and follow the law. The president cannot be arrested (nor can members of Congress or the Supreme Court). They must first be impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office. Then they might be criminally liable. This is an essential protection of "the rule of law" based on centuries of experience in Europe and England, of one power in the government (say, the king) punishing the other (say, parliament) with arbitrary arrest, torture, disempowerment and even death. I don't know the specifics of "balance of power" provisions in Honduras' Constitution (and I do know that that Constitution was heavily influenced by Reagan's henchmen--some of whom are now deeply complicit in this junta--John Negoponte, for instance), but the "balance of powers" is a general tenet of democracy, and, if it is missing from Honduras' Constitution, then it does, indeed, desperately need revision. If what the Honduran junta did was legal--issue an arrest warrant for the President, and have the army arrest him--then something is very wrong with the Honduran Constitution. And the way they did it--at gunpoint--and then declaring martial law, certainly points to their illegality. I think it is very likely that they are the ones who have violated their own Constitution!

And, typical of the rightwing, they project their own crimes onto others! And hire Washington lobbyists and rightwing 'think tanks' to lie, lie, lie and lie some more.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. They also removed him from office...you are confusing the US constitution with theirs.

[Peace Patriot]

71. When was the impeachment trial?

You say he was "removed from office," implying that his removal was somehow proper. I ask again, when was the impeachment trial? What evidence was presented? What was his defense? Who was his lawyer?

There was no impeachment trial, or trial of any kind. He was removed by fiat, and they cocked up these charges against him after he was dragged from his bed at gunpoint and "removed" from the country, as well as from the presidency. And if the Honduran Constitution permits the Supreme Court and the military to "remove" the elected president by force, without even a nod at due process, it really does very much need to be rewritten, don't you think? Point to Zelaya.

Then--then--after the president had been kidnapped (not to mention terrorized--his house shot up, a gun at his head; I think his wife said he was beaten; flown in a plane with blackened windows to an unknown destination)--and the military had declared martial law and shut down the media, then they held a vote in Congress (a vote from which about 20 dissenters were banned), 'electing' the junta president. These procedures were outrageously unfair not only to Zelaya, but also to the people who elected him, and they grossly violated any reasonable concept of democracy and the rule of law. That is why the entire world condemned them--the OAS, the EU, the UN, every trade group in Latin America, and virtually every country on earth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. Supreme Court of Honduras removed him from office and issued a warrant for his arrest

A majority of the court is from his party. Impeachment trial is a US thing.

[Boku-Wa]

106. Another unsupported claim.

[Judi Lynn]

107. They keep waving that "from his own party" like terror-stricken natives waving crucifixes

at truly scary vampires.

It doesn't seem to get them the respect they crave.

http://www.sourcewatch.org.nyud.net:8090/images/d/d5/John_D._Negroponte.jpg http://www.musicismysanctuary.com.nyud.net:8090/HeadsUp/Nosferatu_door_in_the_castle.jpg

Former ambassador to Honduras, "Death Squad John" Negroponte, and Nosferatu.

[Boku-Wa]

108. They are the same! A stake would be a great accessory for John.

Thanks.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Zelaya was ousted by a military coup.

I don't care much for Zelaya, but what the military did was wrong, and just about every international organization in the world can see that. Why can't you?

[SeriousEbony]

29. I see it the way our government does

I also see too many South American leaders trying to become president for life and using populist
mayhem to achieve that goal. Populism can be good, but when it is at the expense of better economical
sense it needs diplomatic reasoning. For instance, what Chavez is doing will result in a money and brain
Exodus just like Cuba, and leave those that remain in squalor...except for the leaders and henchmen
who will live in luxury.

[EFerrari]

46. You're hilarious. The only "mayhem" happening in this case

is the reactivated death squads, suppression of the populace and media censorship in Honduras.

Venezuela is doing just fine and your right wing talking points are well known here, not to mention, stale.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

52. Broad-brush posts like this are quite silly.

As anyone following the situation in Honduras can tell you, due to the scheduling of the vote there was simply no chance of Zelaya becoming "president for life" or any other such nonsense, as his term would have ended before anything decided by the referendum came into effect.

[IndianaGreen]

53. I'll bet you wish John Bolton was still our UN ambassador

and that General Pinochet was a great man.

[roody]

80. Ready for a DU meetup in Honduras?

Might shatter your ignorance.

[Boku-Wa]

88. Yes, and the military violated the law. Why is it so difficult to

understand that kidnapping a president and forcing him into exile was ILLEGAL!

I don't understand how a 'Democrat' can believe this complies with the rule of law. This is what happens in authoritarian countries.

[Peace Patriot]

19. One more thing: If the junta had a case against Zelaya, why didn't they bring it?

Actions speak louder than words--as the saying goes. The oligarchs who kidnapped Zelaya at gunpoint have long had control of the national assembly, the courts and the military--a telling situation to begin with. Only the president, in this power structure, was advocating for the poor majority, and implementing measures such as raising the minimum wage. If they had any kind of case against Zelaya--in this fascist-heavy system--why didn't they put him on trial?

My guess: They know they are unrepresentative. They know they are oppressing the poor majority. They know that their time of greed and over-weaning power is over. And they know that they might not have gotten away with a kangaroo trial--the only kind of trial in which they could have gotten a conviction against Zelaya on their trumped up, Washington DC rightwing 'think tank'-written charges.

So they kidnapped him and threw him out of the country, and declared martial law, and hired Washington lobbyists to lie for them!

----------------------

Well, two other things: Thomas Jefferson urged us to rewrite the Constitution every twenty years or so--to go through the whole revolutionary process of the people discussing and re-writing the fundamental laws of the land frequently, to refresh democracy and dislodge any entrenched, oligarchic power. Do the people of a country not have the right to do this? Is this not the most fundamental right of all? That is what Zelaya proposed that they do--re-think the laws of the land, shake up the oligarchic establishment, and achieve a better democracy. And he proposed it under provisions of the existing Constitution. (No proper Constitution can be written in stone. It must be amendable. And Honduras' Constitution is.) A Constitution is the document by which "the consent of the governed" is obtained. It authorizes the people elected by the majority to act in the interests of the people. The people therefore have a right to SAY what they consent to. For instance, if they say--via constituent assemblies, or a national plebiscite--that they don't want a term limit on the president (or other offices), they have the right to make that rule, over and above any existing law. And if they want the president and not the national assembly to appoint justices, they have the right to make that rule--in a democratic process of constituent assemblies or votes. And if they want to eliminate, say, the Electoral College (a big issue here), or eliminate the Senate and have only the more democratic representation of the House for writing other laws, we and the Hondurans have that right. We, the People. It is an inherent right in a democracy. No one can take that right away, except by force--which is what the Honduran junta has done. Under great pressure, they may consent to Zelaya's return, to finish the few months left in his term, but they are adamant about preventing reform. That is their main issue--keeping their entrenched power. And they have used force--martial law, repression, murders--to do that.

[harmonicon]

18. so, murder isn't against their laws? kidnapping isn't? military coups aren't?

Interesting things to know.

[EFerrari]

24. You don't seriously believe there is anyone here stupid enough

to buy into that, do you?

lol

[fascisthunter]

32. you won't last long

[EFerrari]

48. Again.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Zelaya violating the Constitution is as much a RW myth as Obama being born in Kenya, or Australia

and you are here repeating this tiresome old shit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. OK, the Venezuelan Supreme Court found he violated their constitution and removed him from office

Does that feel better now?

[carla]

17. Obama is a liar.

He is the custodian of the same old shitty foreign policy that has victimized Latin America for centuries. Change? If this is change, then I am done with politics for good.

[ro1942]

21. thanks

my thoughts exactly

[Peace Patriot]

23. I wouldn't go that far ("Obama is a liar")--not yet anyway.

I still think that Obama has good intentions, but I think that, either he made some very questionable compromises and deals, so as not to be Diebolded in the election (for instance, giving Clinton a free hand in Latin America*), OR, he is in a profound power struggle with Bushwhack moles in the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA and other entities (--not to mention known operatives like McCain, who is thickly involved with the Honduran junta). Or, possibly, both things are at work.

*Although Clinton has a very bad record, indeed, on Latin America, she may be trying to implement Obama's foreign policy (not her own)--a stated Obama policy of peace, respect and cooperation in Latin America--and that policy, and her efforts to implement it, are being sabotaged by the Bushwhacks at every turn. I don't think the situation is clear enough yet, to know for sure. She's done some very bad things, thus far--for instance, keeping that Bushwhack fascist pig Brownfield as ambassador to Colombia, and retaining the last-minute Bushwhack ambassador appointments in Central America. These are bad, bad dudes--complicit in the Honduran junta (and likely planning more). Most shocking of all, she is being advised by John "death squad" Negroponte! And there is more: She (or the Pentagon?) is negotiating SEVEN more U.S. military bases in Colombia--whose government and military have one of the worst human rights records on earth, and--as far as I know--she (they?) are continuing the Bushwhack reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean. These things have all of Latin America alarmed at U.S. intentions.

She, without question, serves the interests of war profiteers and global corporate predators. But is she serving Obama--aside from war profiteer/corporate interests-- in her present position? And is his policy of peace, respect and cooperation sincere?

I don't know the answers to these questions. They are difficult answers to obtain in our Byzantine, 'Alice in Wonderland' empire.

One other thing we must consider: That Obama has been set up to be blamed for certain things--last September's Financial 9/11, and the planned economic meltdown; out of control oil prices or shortages (as the Dark Lords did against Jimmy Carter); another violent 9/11 (always possible, if all else fails). And if Obama doesn't go along with Oil War II-South America (in lieu of the nuking of Iran, nixed by the saner elements of the military and by Russia and China), they may "get" him with any of these things--not to mention with the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines (owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations). He may not have the power to implement a decent policy in Latin America, if that is what he sincerely intends.

We risk being manipulated tools of our Corporate Rulers by blaming Obama for our failures, as a people, to tend to our own democracy. He can't do it alone. What you think, or what I think, is immaterial to the powers-that-be as long as we have no power to reform our government. You can be for Obama. You can be against Obama. It doesn't matter. They can still Diebold him out of office--with whatever false narrative they want to invent. What's to stop them? The media? The courts? Congress? Only we can stop them--first of all by restoring transparency to our voting system. I DO think Obama was elected--in fact by a much bigger majority than the far rightwing voting machine corporations or the corpo/fascist media reported. But I can't prove he was elected; nor can he. That's the situation. He was vetted and approved--whatever his good intentions may be. And he can be tossed out--in a far easier and sneakier way than they tossed Zelaya out. So I really do think that we have to judge him accordingly--within the severe limits of our almost-dead democracy. He is either a hypocrite or heavily hamstrung--and, at the moment, I'm favoring the more charitable interpretation. He made deals to get the power to do whatever good he could do. Those deals have him tied down like Gulliver in Lilliput. AND the Bushwhacks (Clinton included?) are working overtime to destroy him.

[totodeinhere]

27. The person that so many of us worked our butts off for and contributed money to is a "liar?"

I don't think so. Where and how specifically did he lie in relation to Honduras? "Change we can believe in" doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything will change. A lot of things such as health care are in the process of being changed, but perhaps in his best judgment President Obama feels that the course of action that his administration is taking over Honduras is the most prudent one at this time. Foreign policy can be very complicated, and in the world of diplomacy sometimes it is necessary to take nuanced actions rather than direct actions in order to accomplish a greater good in the long run.

I really do believe that the Obama Administration does plan to change US policy toward Latin America. But it's complicated and it can't happen overnight.

[Zhade]

39. Yes. Yes, he is. He's broken a number of promises; by default, that makes him a liar.

Did I mention that I don't support liars? Because I really, really, REALLY hate liars -- especially those who allege to be on my side.

[Karenina]

22. The U.S. gubmint is controlled by its CORP and MIC "class"

It is supporting their financial and strategic interests in the region and are up to their noses in this coup.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Give me a break.

There is zero evidence of any US involvement in this coup. The US, along with OAS and many other international organizations has condemned the coup. Nobody has recognized the new "government" of Honduras, including the US. But please feel free to continue making shit up.

[Karenina]

31. Read a little history.

Then check out whose interests are being represented by whom.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. You don't have any, do you? n/t

[Karenina]

40. Sure, I do.

I DO KNOW the history of the U.S. MIC in Latin America. I HAVE READ Smedley Butler's writing. I DID hear first person accounts from those who fled El Salvador. And WHENEVER I want to SPOT THE LIE, I follow the money trail. And you?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. You don't have any evidence, do you?

Ev-i-dence? Can you grasp the meaning of this word?

[Judi Lynn]

42. It's your obligation to inform yourself, as others must, and do. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. It's not up to me to prove other posters' assertions.

And I'm gonna guess that you don't have a single shred of evidence either, ya?

[Karenina]

43. 'Scuse me Missa Boss Man...

I mussa spoke out of turn. Ev-i-dence? Not sho' i knows how to pernounce it...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. Classy. n/t

[Karenina]

47. I know!

:P

[Odin2005]

69. But have no evidence for this specific clusterfuck. FAIL.

Take a logic class.

[Karenina]

79. Odin, stop being silly and willfully IG'NANT! Bitte...

See Judi Lynn's post #73 and dial it down a notch before you reply. :loveya:

[IndianaGreen]

51. US ambassador Hugo Llorens, a Cuban exile, knew of the coup weeks in advance

OAS and EU have recalled their ambassadors from Honduras. The former Pedro Panista Hugo Llorens is still in Honduras, rubbing elbows with the School of Americas trained Honduran military and with the elites. Llorens was appointed by Bush. Why did Obama keep this POS neocon as ambassador?

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Do you have any proof that Llorens knew about the coup in advance?

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

55. He said so himself

and this was posted in DU at the time.

You can google it yourself, or do DU search in LBN or Latin America forum. A lot of the sources were the press either in Latin America, or El Pais in Spain, which had reporters on the ground in Honduras, and independent media such as Narco News.

Honduras: "They knew and they helped a little"

By Juan Gelman. Translated by Scott Campbell.
Axis of Logic
(Spanish) Desde Abajo. (English) Axis of Logic
Monday, Jul 20, 2009

The White House knew for months that a coup was being prepared in Honduras, even though now State Department spokespersons feign a surprised innocence. The U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, knew it very well: on September 12, 2008, he arrived in the Central American country and, nine days later, the current coupist general Romeo Vásquez declared on the radio station HRN that they had sought “to overthrow the government of president Manuel Zelaya Rosales” (9/12/08). He added: “We are a serious and respectful institution, which is why we respect Mr. President as our Commander-in-Chief and we subordinate ourselves as dictated by law.” Just like Pinochet before rising against Salvador Allende. Any resemblance is just the work of reality.

On June 2 of this year, Hillary Clinton went to Honduras to participate in a meeting of the Organization of American States. She spoke with Zelaya and shared with him her discomfort with the referendum that the leader planned to hold at the same time as the next presidential elections. U.S. officials indicated that “they didn’t believe that the plebiscite was constitutional” (The New York Times, 6/30/09). Six days before the coup, the Honduran paper La Prensa reported that Ambassador Llorens had met with influential politicians and military chiefs “in order to find a solution to the crisis” caused by the referendum (6/22/09). The “solution” they found is obvious.

It’s difficult to assume that the military leaders of Honduras, armed by the Pentagon and educated at the School of the Americas, where many Latin American dictators were trained, would have made a move without the approval of their mentors. Aside from that, the coupists did not hide the reasons for their actions: Zelaya was getting too close to the “communism” of Chávez, the Venezuelan most-hated by the White House: in July 2008, under his mandate, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), the new “axis of evil” in Latin America. Too much, right?

Too much, yes, because Honduras is strategic territory for the Pentagon, which from its base in Soto Cano, where it stations troops from the U.S. air force and infantry, doesn’t only dominate Central America: this bona fide enclave is fundamental in the U.S. military’s scheme for a region rich in natural resources. Although he never touched the interests of foreign corporations or the local owners of economic power, Zelaya constituted a danger of “destabilization.” It’s fitting to mention that the referendum about holding a Constituent Assembly that could have permitted the reelection of Zelaya was non-binding. No one was bothered in Washington by the constitutional reform in Colombia that allowed for the re-election of Alvaro Uribe, the great ally of the U.S., which was not even a plebiscite. It’s that one thing is one thing and another is another.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56370.shtml

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. There is no quote in that article of Llorens saying that he knew about the coup in advance

[EFerrari]

62. The Honduran military is completely dependent on us.

They would not have made a move to jeopardize that.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Most sources were in the Spanish press, and were posted and translated in DU

Here is one example in which the Christian Democrat Presidential candidate Felícito Ávila said that Llorens was aware of the coup plans:

http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/08/03/Noticias/Llorens-sabia-lo-que-iba-a-pasar-en-Honduras

and also this:

Llorens estuvo muy al tanto de la situación política hondureña. Incluso intervino en las negociaciones para elegir a las nuevas autoridades de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, según lo denunciado por el comisionado de Derechos Humanos, Ramón Custodio.

which loosely translates as:

Llorens was very much abreast of the Honduran political situation. He even took part in the negotiations to pick the new authorities of the Supreme Court of Justice (IG: which collaborated in the coup), according to charges leveled by the Commissioner of Human rights, Ramón Custodio.


Like I said, you can do a DU search on the coup in LBN or Latin American forum, lots of stuff in the latter.

[Judi Lynn]

58. Don't expect some people to do their own work! n/t

[scarletwoman]

30. +1 Exactly! (nt)

[Judi Lynn]

36. Truly sad, repellent. Here's something just published on this:"Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection"

Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection
Conn Hallinan | August 6, 2009

Editor: Jen Doak

Foreign Policy In Focus

While the Obama administration was careful to distance itself from the recent coup in Honduras — condemning the expulsion of President Manuel Zelaya to Costa Rica, revoking Honduran officials' visas, and shutting off aid — that doesn't mean influential Americans aren't involved, and that both sides of the aisle don't have some explaining to do.

The story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup is that Zelaya — an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power.

That story is a massive distortion of the facts. All Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention, a move that trade unions, indigenous groups, and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for. The current constitution was written by the Honduran military in 1982, and the one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country. Since the convention would have been held in November, the same month as the upcoming presidential elections, there was no way Zelaya could have remained in office in any case. The most he could have done was to run four years from now.

And while Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chavez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage. "What Zelaya has done has been little reforms," Rafael Alegria, a leader of Via Campesina, told the Mexican daily La Jornada. "He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously."

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup.

The first hint that something was afoot was a suit brought by Venezuelan lawyer Robert Carmona-Borjas claiming that Zelaya was part of a bribery scheme involving the state-run telecommunication company Hondutel.

Carmona-Borjas has a rap-sheet that dates back to the April 2002 coup against Chavez. He drew up the notorious "Carmona decrees," a series of draconian laws aimed at suspending the Venezuelan constitution and suppressing any resistance to the coup. As Chavez supporters poured into the streets and the plot unraveled, Carmona-Borjas fled to Washington, DC. He took a post at George Washington University and brought Iran-Contra plotters Otto Reich and Elliott Abrams to teach his class on "Political Management in Latin America." He also became vice-president of the right-wing Arcadia Foundation, which lobbies for free-market policies. Weeks before the June 28 Honduran coup, Carmona-Borjas barnstormed the country accusing Zelaya of collaborating with narco-traffickers.

Carmona-Borjas' colleague, Reich, a Cuban American with ties to right-wing factions all over Latin America and former assistant secretary of State for hemispheric affairs under George W. Bush, has been accused by the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization of "undeniable involvement" in the coup.

This is hardly surprising. Reich was nailed by a 1987 congressional investigation for using public funds to engage in propaganda during the Reagan administration's war on Nicaragua. He is also a fierce advocate for Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, both implicated in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1973 that killed all 73 on board.

Reich is also a ferocious critic of Zelaya. In a recent piece in the Weekly Standard, he urged the Obama administration not to support "strongman" Zelaya because it "would put the United States clearly in the same camp as Cuba's Castro brothers, Venezuela's Chavez, and other regional delinquents."

One of the charges that Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign. McCain has deep ties with telecom giants AT&T, MCI, and Qualcomm and, according to Nikolas Kozloff, author of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge of the United States, "has acted to protect and look out for the political interests of the telecoms on Capitol Hill."

More:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6329



Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra propagandist, Otto Reich



Venezuelan coup architect, and Reich protege, Robert Carmona-Borjas

[Judi Lynn]

34. Honduras` freedom of speech under attack: UN

Honduras` freedom of speech under attack: UN
Posted: 2009/08/06
From: MNN

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Franck La Rue told Radio Globo that the interim government in the country was ``a dictatorial government, a de facto government which is closing the spaces of the democracy.``

TEGUCIGALPA, Aug. 4 (Xinhua) -- Honduras' interim government was accused by the UN on Tuesday of limiting freedom of speech in order to silence opposition.

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Franck La Rue told Radio Globo that the interim government in the country was "a dictatorial government, a de facto government which is closing the spaces of the democracy."

Radio Globo is one of the biggest critics of the interim government, which has accused it of rebellion and threatened to cancel its transmission.

According to La Rue, "the important thing is to have different opinions" and he condemned the possible closing of the radio station.

The interim government recently closed TV channel 36, another of its strong critics.

"This is aggression against the media," said La Rue, who arrived in Honduras on Saturday to investigate freedom of speech in the country.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=621416

[Judi Lynn]

35. Honduras cracks down on student protests

Latest Update: Thursday6/8/2009August, 2009, 10:23 PM Doha Time
Honduras cracks down on student protests
AFP/Tegucigalpa

Police fired teargas and water cannon at some 3,000 students who amassed in the Honduran capital on Wednesday to protest against the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya last June.

Heavily-protected riot police beat back demonstrators who blocked one of the city’s main thoroughfares in front of the National Autonomous University, fulfilling a a pledge to clampdown on protests that have convulsed the Central American since June 28.

Then, Zelaya was bundled out of the country in a military-backed coup, prompting international outrage and a domestic crisis that shows few signs of abating.
On Wednesday his supporters chanted pro-Zelaya slogans and hurled rocks at banks of riot police, leaving the street strewn with detritus, including the husk of a burnt-out vehicle.

Police used water cannon to disperse the protesters, who sought refuge on the university campus, where they were pursued and beaten with batons.
The university’s rector Julieta Castellanos intervened in an attempt to calm both sides, but she too was beaten to the floor.

Elsewhere in the capital, another crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court - which had sanctioned the move against Zelaya - demanding that coup leaders “get out.”

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=307580&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19

[Zhade]

37. Chump change we can believe in.

Not voting for this guy again. Probably not voting at all.

[unkachuck]

64. presidents come and presidents go....

....but the corporate shadow government is always in control....beyond our reach....

[IndianaGreen]

50. Bishop says wealthy elite behind Honduran coup

Bishop says wealthy elite behind Honduran coup

Aug. 05, 2009
By NCR Staff

Catholic News Service reports that a Catholic bishop in western Honduras said members of the country's wealthy elite were behind the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya.

Bishop Luis Santos Villeda of Santa Rosa de Copan also said the country needs a dialogue between the elite and Honduras' poor and working-class citizens. "Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That's what they understand. They know he defended the poor by sharing money with mayors and small towns. That's why they are out in the streets closing highways and protesting (to demand Zelaya's return)," the bishop told Catholic News Service.

In a July 30 telephone interview, he said it is misleading to consider Honduras a democracy, either before or after the June 28 coup. "There has never been a real democracy in Honduras. All we have is an electoral system where the people get to choose candidates imposed from above. The people don't really have representation, whether in the Congress or the Supreme Court, which are all chosen by the rich. We're the most corrupt country in Central America, and we can't talk about real democracy because the people don't participate in the decisions," he said.

http://ncronline.org/news/bishop-says-wealthy-elite-behind-honduran-coup

[New Dawn]

61. War criminal Richard Lugar also voted for the illegal Iraq War.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Our ambassador to Honduras was involved in the coup

This was posted last month in DU:

US ambassador Hugo Llorens had stated on a number of occasions that he was against the consultation being proposed by Zelaya on the possibility of a referendum on a constituent assembly, but he phrased his opposition in typical diplomatic language: “one cannot violate the Constitution in order to create a Constitution”, he said (La Prensa, June 4). This was precisely the argument used by the oligarchy to block Zelaya’s proposed consultation.

However, Llorens stressed that: “whatever is finally done, it should be done within the law, within the Constitution”. On June 17, he echoed the arguments of the Honduran capitalists: “The political situation in the country does not help to create an investment friendly climate. Uncertainty in a country does not help investment” (La Prensa). And he added that the dispute about the consultation should be resolved by Congress. What he was saying, loud and clear, was that the US were in favour of a “democratic constitutional coup”.

Right up to the eve of the coup, US ambassador Llorens was talking to the coup plotters. On June 21, there was a meeting in the US embassy with the presence of president Zelaya, as well as all the coup plotters: Congress president Micheletti, Liberal and National Party presidential candidates Santos and Lobo, and the head of the Armed Forces, Romeo Vásquez. According to the report in the Honduran La Prensa, Zelaya was told that “the best way out of the crisis” would be for him to “cancel the consultation and carry out an opinion poll instead”. (La Prensa, June 22). The very fact that the US ambassador is meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country in this manner is a clear indication of the status of Honduras as a “banana republic” dominated by US imperialism. The message to Zelaya was clear: cancel the referendum or else.

It would be extremely naïve to think that Llorens did not know of the plans for a coup ‑ in fact this was being openly discussed in the Honduran media in the days leading up to it ‑ and even more naïve to think that he had not reported to Washington. Llorens is not a newcomer, he was nominated as US ambassador to Honduras by the Bush administration and had been Head of Andean Affairs at the National Security Council in 2002 and 2003. This position made him Bush’s main advisor on matters related to Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. He therefore was well aware of the failure of the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

http://www.marxist.com/honduras-army-prevents-zelaya-come-back.htm

[Odin2005]

70. Oh, that's an unbiased source, NOT.

And a LENIN avatar? REALLY? That man was a scumbag totalitarian.

[Judi Lynn]

74. Address the content, and indicate what part of it is not factual. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

73. The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras

Posted: August 7, 2009 01:09 PM BI
The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras

The coup in Honduras - and the at best grudging and vacillating support in Washington for the restoration of President Zelaya - has thrown into stark relief a fundamental fault line in Latin America and a moral black hole in U.S. policy toward the region.

What is the minimum wage which a worker shall be paid for a day's labor?

Supporters of the coup have tried to trick Americans into believing that President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military because he broke the law. But this is nonsense. A Honduran bishop told Catholic News Service,

"Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That's what they understand. They know he defended the poor by sharing money with mayors and small towns. That's why they are out in the streets closing highways and protesting (to demand Zelaya's return)"

This is why the greedy, self-absorbed Honduran elite turned against President Zelaya: because he was pursuing policies in the interests of the majority. The Washington Post noted in mid-July,

To many poor Hondurans, deposed president Manuel "Mel" Zelaya was a trailblazing ally who scrapped school tuitions, raised the minimum wage and took on big business.

In a statement condemning support for the coup by U.S. business groups, the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation expressed its concern that under the coup regime, there are

worsening working conditions, and in particular at efforts to claw back a wage increase ordered by President Zelaya six months ago in order to reflect the increased cost of food and other essentials. In reality the increased wage barely covered 90% of basic food needs and less than a third of a living wage covering basic needs such as food, rent, transport, education, and medical care.

It's not just in Honduras that raising the minimum wage provoked a coup. In reporting about efforts by Haitian lawmakers this week to raise the minimum wage in Haiti, AP noted:

Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in 2004, in part after business owners angered by his approval of an increased minimum wage organized opposition against him.

This May, the Haitian Parliament approved a proposal to triple the minimum wage to about $5 a day. But President Preval rejected this, saying

the increase should omit workers at factories producing garments for export. Preval said those workers should receive an increase to about $3.

What's the argument in Haiti against raising the minimum wage?
The debate has fueled unrest across the impoverished Caribbean nation, with some critics arguing that an increase would hurt plans to fight widespread unemployment by creating jobs in factories that produce clothing for export to the United States.
There are the magic words I search for in these articles, often buried at the bottom: "United States."

So, the argument is being made that Haiti can't afford to raise the minimum wage for workers in the export sector to $5 a day, because if they did Americans would buy clothes and shoes produced in some other countries.

Let me underline this, dear reader. You, as an American consumer, you are being invoked in Haiti as the reason that the minimum wage cannot be raised to $5 a day.

Of course this is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of Americans, along with the overwhelming majority of Haitians and Hondurans, would be absolutely delighted if Haitian and Honduran workers producing clothes for the U.S. market would be paid more. Labor costs are a small fraction of the prices that consumers face. Wages are so low because that yields even more profits for those who already have more money than they can ever spend; the low wage floor is being determined by government policy in Washington, Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere, not by the desires of consumers. No magic formula of economics determines the minimum wage that can be sustained in Haiti and Honduras. At the margin - whether the minimum wage shall be $3 a day or $5 a day in the export sector in Haiti - it is determined politically.

If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/the-minimum-wage-and-the_b_254023.html

[Karenina]

77. Thank you!!!

[Judi Lynn]

91. Hi, Karenina. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Xicano]

75. You're too kind. Obama hasn't turned a blind eye, he's complicit

Very disappointing. I had hoped for so much better from him. Too bad Dennis Kucinich didn't win. Oh well....

[Boku-Wa]

103. You are so right aout Obama.

[Mudoria]

99. I guess they understand reality.. Zelaya is out and he's not coming back..