Except of course, the fact that the US president has checked power is a good thing. And the fact that our Prime Minister's have so much power is a bad thing, if you ask me
In fact, the US president still has too much power if you ask me.
But I'm a libertarian anti-government type, so you're not really going to ever sell me on governments having an inordinate amount of authority.
... and I need to actually read what I write before I post it.
Talking points are out eh Dawg.
You might want to check but not only is there a term limit in Honduras there is also an explicit constitutional prohibition against trying to get the term limit changed and violation of that prohibition by a sitting President automatically triggers removal from office.
But, not to worry, the Big O will not let a pesky thing like the constitution of a banana republic get in the way. Especially as the President violating that constitution is of the Left.
Did the OAS kick them out or did they leave on their own?
Being a bit of a procedure freak, I am fascinated by the notion of a constitution that makes a change to itself illegal. We aren't dealing with the Ten Commandments here, but with a document.
All Zelaya did, in any case, was to attempt to consult the people about their taste for constitutional change. It was a non-binding referendum that called only for a constituent assembly. Such an assembly would have the power to review--and propose change to--the constitution, proposals subject to binding referendum. Inconvenient, possibly, for the Right, but that's how democracy and the rule of law work.
"...but that's how democracy and the rule of law work."
Well, in theory anyway and aren't theories wonderful things? Of course, the army gets the last word in places with little history of allowing the theory to come to fruition in practice. For me, right and left are meaningless in places where those in power always resort to armed force when it appears that the "rule of law" is going to go against them.
As an aside, I'm not sure why that last quote went hyperlink; I didn't type it that way.
"All Zelaya did, in any case, was to attempt to consult the people about their taste for constitutional change."
Apparently that is precisely what the constitution is designed to prohibit. Or, at least, that is what the Honduran Supreme Court decided.
But, not to worry, Obama and Chavez say otherwise so why pay attention to a tinpot sovereignty.
And Dawg, don't take my word for it, take Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
"Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to 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." csm
Perhaps you could pass this along to Mr. Day and any others on the mailing list.
Dawg,
The way Zalaya was removed reeks of fascism. The curfew and subsequent curtailment of civil rights is even more disturbing. That's probably why your usual suspects support the events as they unfolded.
That said, from what I understand, the Constitution in Honduras does not make it illegal for any changes to be made, just changes made by the president with regards to the number of terms. I could be wrong however.
So you obviously object to the way he was ousted. I think most rational people should be. But would this be a coup, if say for instance, he had been removed in a more civilized fashion, perhaps the way Nixon was removed? Or do you feel the Constitution in Honduras is so wrong that he was right to ignore the courts and, apparently, the will of his own congress?
I'm just asking btw, I don't really know the answer as there seems to be a lot of propaganda on both sides.
Can't spell my own name now apparently ...
Doesn't Jay have dead people to mock?
The President was careful in his non-binding referendum not even to mention term limits--solely a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution.
The present constitution is silent on constituent assemblies. Presumably one could create one through an Act. That would mean Zelaya would have had to push it through a Congress that didn't even want his non-binding referendum in the first place.
The main point is that business and other elites didn't want the people to be heard. Zelaya himself, as noted, squeaked into power and now has a 34% approval rating. Much ado about nothing, one might say, except the "ado" was likely more illegal than what Zelaya was looking for.
Again, though, Jay, what kind of constitution makes its own amendment illegal? Bizarre. I'm all for the rule of law, which wasn't in any case violated here, but even laws and constitutions at some point should be subject to democratic amendment/change.
Thanks for the link, Jay, it's an interesting one. Here's an odd excerpt:
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
IANAL but I'm not sure that's what "immediately" means.
Sr. Sanchez is a lawyer, so presumably he knows how easy it is to demonstrate intent. Maybe he can write another op-ed explaining the process by which the military in Honduras can be authorized to arrest citizens at gunpoint and exile them from their own country "immediately". I haven't read their constitution, but he claims it's in there somewhere.
I mean, I realize that there is a history there, and court orders, and that the legislative and judicial branches also seem to be in on this coup. But maybe Sanchez, as a learned student of South American dictatorships and coups d'etat, could recognize why things look more than a little fishy here. And, shockingly, it's more than just Chavez and Obama who seem to have a problem.
Dawg, as I read it the amendment of the constitution is not illegal, rather it is the proposed amendment of the constitution by named persons - ie. the President.
For whatever reason, and I can think of several valid ones, the Hondurans want fixed limits on the Presidential term and they don't want the President to even think about changing that.
The President had other ideas and wanted to conduct a poll on the calling of a Constitutional Assembly. And he told the public service that they were required to vote in this poll. The Honduran Supreme Court called foul and, under the constitution, as soon as that happened Zelaya was out on his ass.
Now, you may think this is a bit rich but, as Sanchez points out, Honduras has had more than a few constitutions and the current one has lasted the longest.
There seems no reason for the rest of the world to stick its oar into a purely Honduran affair.
The law says that the President may not make specific reference to two articles in the Honduran constitution. He didn't. The law doesn't make any reference to being exiled, either--so far as I know.
Telling people they have to vote--well, think Australia. Telling people how to vote is something else, but Zelaya didn't do that.
An internal affair? Seems to me you folks do a lot of picking and choosing in that respect. Can you say "Afghanistan?"
Dawg, you and I may or may not agree on what the Honduran Constitution says - but what we think does not matter. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that the President had violated the Constitution and, per its provisions, was to be removed from office forthwith.
(I agree with you that there does not seem to be any provision re exile.)
The apples/oranges comparison with Afghanistan is a stretch even for you Dawg. Failed state harbouring terrorists vs. democratic state enforcing its own Constitution.
And I note that the new President is, in fact, from the old President's party.
So Jay, your spin is that this is just Recall at Gunpoint?
Nope.The President violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court rules against him and the Constitution calls for his immediate removal from office. The Army is directed by Congress to remove the President which it does. The new President is appointed per the Constitution.
There is no "recall" here.
Cameron
"...recall at gunpoint..."
Seems preferable to the venerable tradition of a convenient lampost for los presidentes who outgrew their britches but didn't have the muscle to back up their grand pretensions.
Zelaya in exile is going to be a huge pain in the ass to Congress and to the Interim President. If he had been ruthlessly gunned down, the event would be a footnote by now (move on folks, nothing to see here) with opposing factions gearing up for the election due in a few months.
I smell an upcoming invasion, most likely from Nicaragua. The invaders can use the same routes that the Contras followed a few years ago, but in the opposite direction.
Jay:
Give me a break, you apologist for military coups. Zelaya in no way violated the constitution.
Libertarian, shmibertarian. You love a man in uniform.
The Honduran Supreme Court disagrees with you Dawg and as it is, after all, their constitution, I would tend to defer to their opinion.
Jay has it. The now ex-president called a poll; the supreme court ruled it illegal; the ex-president persisted in the poll; the supreme court ordered his removal from office. The military removed him; the congress elected an interim president from the party of the ex-president. The part about the illegality of the poll is lifted directly from the link CC provided, but in that narrative the author waves all of this away by saying that the supreme court is packed with conservative elements or whatever. So um, would you mind telling us again where the rule of law was waylaid, why all of this is illegitimate, and how your interpretation of events is more authoritative than that of the supreme court of the country in question?
jimmy, you're reaching for it.
There is nothing in Honduran law about exile.
The Venezuelan Supreme Court found nothing wrong with the Keystone Koup plotters against Hugo Chavez. Supreme Courts down there are not quite like ours.
The President did not persist in the poll. He made it not binding--a sondage, not so far as I know against Honduran law. But I await your expertise on the subject.
Let's here all about the rule of law, and why it supports coups. Come on, jimmy: for a man of your broad and extensive legal knowledge this is hardly a challenge. Let's have it, then.
What fun Dawg. Don't like the verdict, impugn the Court. There's rule of law for 'ya.
I agree that there is no apparent basis for exile. Reading the Honduran Constitution it appears that if you attempt to change the electoral rules later than six months before an election or do anything which might give rise to an extension of your term if you are President you immediately forfeit your office and are ineligible to run again for ten years. But there is nothing in that particular section as to penalty. (No doubt there are penalties for violating the Constitution but my Spanish is not up to the task of finding them.
The fact the President had the poll at all and required civil servants to participate in it was sufficient for the Supreme Court to find he violated the Constitution.
You know Dawg you really do sound like a bit of a Yanqui Imperialist with all this second guessing of the Supreme Court of a sovereign nation.
(As for Chavez, as Venuzuela sinks slowly into the mire and Chavez scrambles to stay afloat, one might be forgiven for suggesting that their Supreme Court might have been on to something.)
Shouldn't Jay be over at "Weasel Zippers" or some other right wing hell hole. I'm sure I'm interested in his interpretation. I would like to add myself to the list of those encourageing people to doubt his veracity. Standing up for the right wing is just creepy to me. What's in it for him? Central america would be a better place if the rich had more control? Give me a break! The rich have nearly strangled the life out of our neighbors to the south. Now they are saying they aren't being treated fairly? To me it's like someone arguing for segregation. Get a life! At least give up trying to propagate a bunch of crap. Life's too short, and it makes you look really stupid. I mean stupid. And for what?
1) The fact that the military exiled the president does not mean that the order of the supreme court was illegal. I note that Honduran law will, as in all legal systems, include constitutional instruments, statute and precedent. The precedents clarify the terms of art used in the first two. It is here that we will find what removal from office entails.
2) Because of #1, removal from office can include exile; we don't know whether it does or does not.
3) The fact that the military effected the president's removal from office by potentially illegally exiling him does not make the initial order of the supreme court requesting his removal from office illegal. You need to clarify whether you are saying that his removal was contrary to law or that the manner in which it was pursued was contrary to law. Taking the latter position concedes that this was not a coup.
4) Venezuela is not Honduras, much like Germany is not Canada (you have made this mistake before).
5) The "rule of law" means that no one is above the law, including presidents. Government must be according and subject to the law. If by "supreme courts down there are not like ours," what you are essentially saying is that the rule of law in Latin America is whatever you say it is for partisan purposes.
6) With #5, the supreme court declared the poll/sondage/whatever illegal. Your differing opinion is irrelevant.
7) With #5, the supreme court requested that the military remove the president. By all accounts this order was legal.
8 ) Most people are understandably loath to draw generalizations about whole continents, especially when the constituent states of those continents have different legal and constitutional histories.
We have your opinion against that of the Honduran supreme court; we also have your assertion that the Honduran supreme court is not to be trusted. You need to lead evidence that the supreme court did not order the removal from office to sustain your position or, in the alternate, that the supreme court is illegitimate. If you take the latter route, there is no rule of law in Honduras as no legal decisions by that country's highest court can be said to be binding.
Anything else?
It seems I repeated myself between 1 and 3 in the above. Sorry.
And that my sentence structure generally sucks. Bleah :P
"Honduras’s military acted under judicial orders in deposing President Manuel Zelaya, Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz said, rejecting the view of President Barack Obama and other leaders that he was toppled in a coup.
“The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order,” Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. “There’s no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.”
Cruz said the court issued a sealed arrest order for Zelaya on June 26, charging him with treason and abuse of power, among other offenses. Zelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation’s charter that the court ruled illegal, and which opponents contend would have paved the way for a prohibited second term.
She compared Zelaya’s tactics, including his dismissal of the armed forces chief for obeying a court order to impound ballots to be used in the vote, with those of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez." bloomberg
"I would like to add myself to the list of those encourageing people to doubt his veracity."
Why thanks Craig. Quoting Hondurans on their own Constitution with links clearly calls my veracity into question. Because otherwise you would have to pull your head out of your butt and recognize that much as we all would like rainbows and unicorns and lefty Presidents for life, the people of Honduras have this pesky Constitution which they are crazy enough to think needs to be respected.
Now I realize Zelaya is a pal of Chavez's and therefore, from a left perspective, immune from criticism but somebody has to at least acknowledge the 66% of Hondurans who had the wit not to vote for this chap. And, were one terribly, terribly hardcore one might also suggest that 100% of the people of Honduras have the right to have their Constitution and their Supreme Court respected.
Why on earth should a poll be illegal? That sounds to me like something that violates one of the key principles of democracy. If the people of Honduras wanted term limits to remain, surely they could have voted to say so.
Was there something wrong with the way the poll was conducted?
James, see Honduras Constitution Article 239.
I suspect the framers of the Honduran Constitution had concluded - after a couple of dozen Constitutions - that Presidents have a nasty habit of trying to cling to office. So they wrote that a person holding office who propose changing the Constitution to extend their term in office would immediately forfeit that office.
The Honduran Supreme Court concluded that the President's action meant he had forfeited his office. The Army enforced the order of the Court.
We might want to have a debate about whether this is a good law in some abstract sense; but the Hondurans apparently have already had that debate so who are we to second guess them?
If someone can check article 102 of the Honduran constitution? It apparently says no Honduran can be expatriated. Or maybe something was changed the year following to amend that article into nothing; they so love to play with their constitutions, those Hondurans.
(Except when the playing pisses off the Honduran elites.)
"What fun Dawg. Don't like the verdict, impugn the Court. There's rule of law for 'ya."
Currie, do you seriously believe that law and its creation is a completely neutral occurrence?
Hell no Todd. I have no doubt at all that after a long and checkered history of Constitutional drafting (about two dozen by a quick count) the Hondurans decided that one thing they did not want was a President hanging around. So they created a term limit and, just to make the rubble bounce, said that if the President tried to alter the term limit or even hinted at it he was out on his ass.
This was not neutral, this was entirely deliberate.
(But I agree with you on the exile thing. They should have locked him up, tried him and jailed him if he was convicted; but that was for various forms of treason rather than the Constitutional thing.)
Jay:
Can you show me where Zelaya even raised the issue of term limits? Because it's my understanding that he did not.
A full-time apologist for Israeli crimes against international law lecturing people on the rule of law.
It is to puke.
If a sitting president does provoke a constitutional crisis I'm pretty sure that forcing him out of the country at gun-point isn't the way to go about it.
A start would have been to launch legal proceedings against him.
It's pretty clear that Honduran elites and their SOA-graduate body-guards didn't want to pursue legal-political avenues because they knew that they'd lose.
Doc: It doesn't matter whether he raised the issue or not. A more competent authority (the supreme court) situated more closely to the events than you or I has spoken. Hell, you can assemble the sequence from the various orders issued by the supreme court: the first was to prevent the poll from taking place, the second was to reinstate a general that the president illegally fired after requesting that he distribute polling boxes for the illegal poll, and the third was for the removal of the president from office. These decisions carry the force of law, so you can drop the "rule of law" argument: it isn't live. You should instead be saying that the supreme court decided wrongly, and provide reasons as to why.
Thwap:
"A full-time apologist for Israeli crimes against international law lecturing people on the rule of law.|
Ad hominem tu quoque. Please grow up.
"A start would have been to launch legal proceedings against him."
Three orders from the supreme court culminating in his removal. What legal proceedings were you envisioning?
This is becoming embarrassing.
Let me step outside my area of comfort for a minute and add my 2 cents worth. To me it all boils down to the question that the good Doctor asked Jay "Can you show me where Zelaya even raised the issue of term limits? Because it's my understanding that he did not."
I thought a place to look would be to see what the actual referendum was going to say. Via here, it would appear that the wording was only about adding a fourth box on the November ballot that would allow people to say either yes or no to holding a "national constituent assembly".
It should be noted as well, as the link points out, that such a question would take place in the November elections and Zelaya was due to be finished then so there is not way he could have used this to keep power (he was possibly thinking of another term in the future, but that is speculation).
Did the Supreme Court act appropriately is another matter. It would seem that they were pretty underhanded if not illegal in banning referendums after he announced he was going to call one. But I will leave that for better people to discuss.
Regards,
John
A note on the selection process of the Honduran Supreme Court.
They are selected for seven year terms by establishment representatives. The most recent selection in January was evidently quite confrontational.
It doesn't matter whether he raised the issue or not.
And yet that was the crux of the matter, widely misreported as it has been.
What you're saying, in effect, is that a fellow can be condemned for murder, and it doesn't matter that he didn't fire the gun--and that the "victim" is alive.
"Jimmy Durante"
If you're too dense to see the irony then you have my pity.
If you're trying to score some sort of point, then I return to you the advice, "Grow the hell up."
My criticism of currie's hypocrisy was not connected to my opinions about the strength of his argument. That would be the good doctor's engaging with him as to whether Zelaya was within his rights to ask that question.
That would require a careful reading of the Honduran Constitution, the Honduran Supreme Court's decision, the nature of Zelaya's question and the legal advice he might have had as he went through this process. Things I have neither the time nor the inclination to look at right now. But if currie is going to hypocritically yammer about the rule of law and Dawg manages to trump him on the question of the legality of Zelaya's proposal can we expect currie to shut his mouth?
Because what is incontrovertible is that the political-economic status-quo in Latin America has kept the vast majority of the inhabitants there mired in the misery of poverty and extreme social inequalities. The forces dedicated to keeping Zelaya out of his own country are the forces seeking to perpetuate this condition and it's long past time that we stopped listening to them.
"The rich have nearly strangled the life out of our neighbors to the south"
I'm always amused by the left's continued attempts to blame the plight of the world's poor on "the rich" under the economically illiterate interpretation that by virtue of being rich at all, you are stealing from the poor.
South and Central America's problem has never been capitalism. It's never been "the rich". South America and Central America have suffered perpetually from populist, reactionary rule on both the left and the right.
In Brazil, for example, you can never give some a pay cut. Ever. If you give someone a raise, they have a legal right to maintain that level of pay, perpetually. A government ran on a campaign to implement this, and won with flying colours. Brazil's unemployment rate increased by a full 5 percentage points within 3 years.
Populist measures that constantly attempt to limit market forces have played a bigger role in corruption and poverty in South America than anything "the rich" have done.
That said policy in Brazil has led the company I work for to hire less employees in Sao Paulo in order to avoid the nightmare of labour regulations there.
The left LOVES these regulations because it stick it to big, rich companies like mine. Except, we just stop doing business there.
I'm sick and tired of economically illiterate leftists blaming South America's problem on capitalism and the rich, when populist leftists in South America have made a sport out of making S.A. one of the most difficult places to invest and do business. And then blame rich people and investors for all the poverty.
Christ, you people are irritating.
... that all being said, I just want to be spared any questions about US interference in South America (ie. Pinochet), as that has absolutely no fucking bearing on anything I said.
I feel compelled to pre-deflect any points like that, because every time I make these points, a fucking left-wing asshole will inevitably try to get me to defend US Foreign Policy, as if it's in any way connected to what I'm talking about.
I'm increasingly convinced that conservatives and socialists should both get a bed as both groups are equally insane to me. =)
Mike:
May I offer you a copy of Open Veins of Latin America?
Dawg,
It might surprise you to hear that I've read Mr. Galeano's book.
I do not deny any of the history, insofar as South America has been pillaged by powerful interests, often external interests.
But the difference between an economic and political liberal like myself and a person with a socialist internationalist view, is that I do not connect capitalism directly with politics. Rather, capitalism is an economic system that is the natural state of free actors operating in a common market.
When governments get involved and start acting on behalf of or against commercial interests, it stops being a free market. It falls offside my own ideological outlook for what is and is not moral.
The United States has been an accomplice and/or initiator in much of these transgressions, and many many libertarians like myself criticize the US in the same way the left does. But we do not share your conclusions.
We do not connect America's imperialist activities with capitalism itself. Nor do we believe that the American state is an agent of or for capitalism. It only thinks it is.
And I find it offensive that the leftist movements around the world try to wash their hands of the damage they've done by encouraging, funding, and arming various revolutions and populist uprisings that have almost never resulted in any favourable outcome.
There were two kinds of imperialism in the 20th century. The problem was, that both the left and the right only saw the other in that light.
"Last year, following the script originally laid out by Chávez in Venezuela and adopted by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set up a constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. In the next few months, every legal body in Honduras -- the electoral tribunal, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman -- declared the referendum unconstitutional. According to the Honduran constitution (articles 5, 373 and 374), presidential term limits cannot be changed under any circumstance; only Congress can modify the constitution; and political institutions are not subject to referendums. Honduras's Congress, Zelaya's own Liberal Party and a majority of Hondurans (in various polls) expressed their horror at the prospect of having Zelaya perpetuate himself and bring Honduras into the Chávez fold. In defiance of court orders, Zelaya persisted. Surrounded by a friendly mob, he broke into the military installations where the ballots were kept and ordered them distributed. The courts declared that Zelaya had placed himself outside the law, and Congress began an impeachment procedure." Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Washington Post
Dawg, Zelaya's actions went well beyond calling a referendum. When that was ruled illegal he defied the Court and the Congress, fired the head of the Army who refused to obey illegal orders and led a mob to take charge of the ballots.
There was a coup here: Zelaya's against the institutions of the Honduran state.
Mike Brock,
Thanks for the diversion into pure fantasy.
Following Mr. Brock's diatribe about violations against his mythical "free market" we will next hear from a commenter who believes that the problem is people sinning against God and not praying fervently enough.
Mr. Brock, I take it you're prone to mocking people who defend socialism against the USSR and PRC examples by saying that neither state was genuinely socialist? If so, you ought not to, because you sound exactly like them. Only you have less legitimacy.
Oh, and i see currie has returned to screech about the rule of law again. Oh and his tender regard for the democratic rights of the people of Honduras.
Although he overplays his hand by tossing in his mindless condemnations of Chavez and Morales gleaned from the Washington Post (an enthusiastic enabler of practically every single crime of the bush II regime).
In so doing, currie reveals himself to be on the side of the IMF starvation policies and the death squads that enforce them. The shamelessness of it all ...
Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set up a constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection.
Fine, even artistic, bit of weasel-wording there by Vargas Llosa: masterful in its ambiguity. Did Zelaya announce that he wanted the constitution changed? Or that he wanted it changed to let him run again? Would the assembly change the constitution specifically in that manner?
Given Zelaya's apparent inability to win his point with his party, Congress or the Supreme Court, I can only surmise, as I said before, that the powers that be didn't want the people to be heard--even by means of a non-binding referendum that would have been voted upon when he had finished his one allowable term, and called only for the formation of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution--no concrete proposals were made in that respect.
And I have to smile when I see that "a majority of Hondurans" didn't want Zelaya in for a second time. OK, then, what's the damn problem? JUST DON'T VOTE FOR HIM! Simple. Too simple, it seems, for the media, and the right-wing coup-cheering crowd to grasp.
And this presupposes that the constituent assembly would alter the constitution in exactly that way. How can anyone know what a body that doesn't even exist would do?
The term limits issue appears in any case to be a red herring. But the Usual Suspects were raising the same moan when Chavez put it on the ballot. Somehow it's undemocratic to let the people decide. Unless the winds are blowing to the Right, of course.
Zelaya is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He can fire generals. That particular general disobeyed an order. Illegal? You'll have to show me where in Honduran law it is illegal to conduct what amounts to a public opinion poll.
Congress began an impeachment procedure
Never got around to finishing it, somehow. Fancy that.
Actually Dawg, if you have been following along, you will know that the President was criminally charged.
Now, I have read, but can't confirm, that on the night of his arrest he was given a choice between staying and facing the charges or being flown out of the country. Which would explain the "exile" question. But I have also read that the military decided to fly him out of the country on the basis that his remaining would lead to unrest.
Delightfully, the Supreme Court has published a time line of the events leading to his ouster; but it is in Spanish and a PDF so even Babblefish level translation is precluded.
I certainly take your point that given his unpopularity a straight vote would seem to have doomed him. However, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the military and even the "Human Rights ombudsman" all apparently concluded that Zelaya's behaviour was contrary to the constitution and illegal.
While I realize that these institutions are staffed by mere Latin Americans it might just be that they have a more complete picture and more at stake than the kibitzers on the sidelines.
What I am curious about is why their conclusion is being so hotly contested. I mean it is not as if Zelaya was a particularly good President or enjoyed an overwhelming mandate. So why the investment? Other than the fact he'd become a Chavez client.
Currie said:
"the Hondurans decided"
_Some_ Hondurans. There's a difference, and it goes back to my question about the "neutral" creation of law.
Brock said:
"I'm always amused by the left's continued attempts to blame the plight of the world's poor on 'the rich' under the economically illiterate interpretation that by virtue of being rich at all, you are stealing from the poor."
That's why it's called "exploitation" and why we think that's a bad thing.
"South and Central America's problem has never been capitalism. It's never been 'the rich'. South America and Central America have suffered perpetually from populist, reactionary rule on both the left and the right."
What do you think they're fighting over? It's the same struggle that goes on wherever there's class society.
"In Brazil, for example, you can never give some a pay cut. Ever. If you give someone a raise, they have a legal right to maintain that level of pay, perpetually. A government ran on a campaign to implement this, and won with flying colours. Brazil's unemployment rate increased by a full 5 percentage points within 3 years."
Oh, please. Spare me the "we gotta pay less to get more workers" routine. It's bullshit.
"Populist measures that constantly attempt to limit market forces have played a bigger role in corruption and poverty in South America than anything 'the rich' have done."
Maybe. But they sure as shit didn't eliminate exploitation, either, which is far more endemic than mere corruption.
"That said policy in Brazil has led the company I work for to hire less employees in Sao Paulo in order to avoid the nightmare of labour regulations there."
Oh, the poor owners! So abused while forcing employees to work gratis for them! I'll send them some flowers!
"The left LOVES these regulations because it stick it to big, rich companies like mine. Except, we just stop doing business there."
Heh. Now imagine a world without capitalist social relations anywhere, Buppy. Where to run to, eh?
"I'm sick and tired of economically illiterate leftists blaming South America's problem on capitalism and the rich, when populist leftists in South America have made a sport out of making S.A. one of the most difficult places to invest and do business. And then blame rich people and investors for all the poverty."
And you talk about economic illiteracy while making a dipshit statement like that.
Pot, meet Kettle . . . .
From "Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal "
"Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: 'it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory', and that 'reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.'
Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions."
http://www.counterpunch.org/
thor...en07012009.html
So much for currie's self-serving hypocrisy about the rule of law. The bulk of the rest of currie's drivel appears to be that opponents of the coup are stooges for Hugo Chavez, (Chavez being the only problematic Latin American leader aside from the Cubans apparently) or that we're dripping with bigoted contempt for mere Hondurans. The fact that Zelaya and his supporters are also Honduran hasn't registered with the dolt.
This is how the enemies of democracy and justice defend their actions, with shameless cynicism, hypocrisy and lies.
Well, Jay, that theory was blown out of the water when he tried to return and was not permitted to land.
Why so much excitement? Because, until this, military coups seemed to be fading out of fashion.
You are aware the the general that Zelaya tried to fire was a proud graduate of the Torture School of the Americas? There are many, many wheels within wheels here.
I agree Dawg that there are wheels within wheels. For example the referendum ballots were printed in Venezuela because the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled the referendum illegal.
I was aware that the general had been to SOA. What of it? Again, the Hondurans have a perfect right to appoint whom they like to their military.
That the new government refused Zelaya permission to land tends to support the theory that he was given the choice of leaving the country or standing trial. He made a deal then reneged.
"military coups seemed to be fading out of fashion" makes the assumption that following the Orders of the Supreme Court endorsed by the Legislature to arrest the President for breaching the constitution and various criminal activities is a "coup". Generally "coups" are extra constitutional rather than in protection of the constitution. And "military coups" tend to end up with unelected generals assuming power. Whatever else this has been it is a real stretch to call it a "military coup".
"I'm always amused by the left's continued attempts to blame the plight of the world's poor on "the rich" under the economically illiterate interpretation that by virtue of being rich at all, you are stealing from the poor."
Unbelievable. I guess you're not familiar with the term "Banana Republic"(Honduras, incidentally being the country to which the term was first applied), nor it's meaning.
And indeed much of the arable land in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador was taken by outright theft. Land that is still the basis of wealth today.
"When governments get involved and start acting on behalf of or against commercial interests, it stops being a free market. It falls offside my own ideological outlook for what is and is not moral."
Lovely strawman. The poster you were responding to said "The rich have nearly strangled the life out of our neighbors to the south" - an indesputable fact - and said nothing about any mythical pure free market.
I don't know if there's enough information to figure this out. Dawg's asked the relevant questions to whether Zelaya actually violated the constitution. It's quite unclear, but those who are onside (such as Jay's links) explicitly claim that evidence is unnecessary.
The Supreme Court, in Honduras, is a creature of Congress and so by definition has no more credibility than that body.
Congress is the driving factor. Zelaya is a member of the largest party, but it's not a majority and the other major party is very opposed to him. Clearly enough members of his own party - and the new 'president' is also a Liberal - decided to topple him as well. But how many have been arrested or intimidated? We don't know, they've clamped down on the media there.
Something's fishy, and no matter how many times people say "Chavez", "continuismo" and "populism" the bad smell doesn't go away.
Jay:
Once again, the obvious is being missed. Why not arrest him as he gets off the plane and put him on trial? After all, nobody likes him, apparently, except for a few yokels. A mere 34% public approval rating, and the wrath of two, make that three, branches of governance, and the country's elites. Into the slammer with him. Piece of cake.
Unless, of course, we're being studiously fed a line of bull. Maybe the people want change. Maybe he's more popular than the poll made out. Maybe he's entirely within the law (Section 5 of the Civil Protection Act, as has been noted) to have a non-binding referendum.
What, one wonders, was everyone afraid of? Had the referendum been held, if we buy the official line, Zelaya would have been utterly humiliated. Crushed.
Something isn't adding up here, Jay, and you're bright enough to know it.
From Zelaya was doing something illegal, then Zelaya was about to conduct a coup and of course Zelaya was about to help Chavez invade Honduras and in the middle of that the Supreme Court representation of Rosalinda Cruz or the voice of reality, which is to make Obama look bad because he makes criticism of a coup without being fully informed and Currie and Durante can perform opera round the law. Would anyone in their right mind make coup without some legal wizard twirling in the dust these days?
All interesting questions Dawg.
Looking at the snaps of the pro-government demos vs the demos for the ex-President I would say the man has rather few supporters. But that is not the question which was before the Supreme Court. The question there was whether or not his (eventually) non-binding referendum was legal and if public money and the military could be employed to conduct it. The Court decided it was not. The ex-President lead a mob to liberate the ballots. And so on.
There are plenty of questions about the actual process and plenty about whether a President, turned down by the Court and by Congress, can just get on with whatever he wants to do. For the moment the big 0 and Chavez and the OAS are taking the position that, why of course he can, he was elected. This is a position which entirely disregards the idea of a constitutional state.
Just as you think stuff is not adding up inside Honduras I have to wonder at what would possess Obama to make common cause with Chavez against the constitutionally mandated institutions of a sovereign nation.
(Frankly wrt to Obama my own thought is that he is way out of his depth which is worrying because he's negotiating with smart Russians and is going to have to deal with the far more complicated issues following on that fine exercise of democracy in Iran.)
Mr. Brock, I take it you're prone to mocking people who defend socialism against the USSR and PRC examples by saying that neither state was genuinely socialist? If so, you ought not to, because you sound exactly like them.
No, I'm prone to mocking people who say things like "the rich have had it their way for far too long". This is a statement of the the kind of typical class warfare / populist bullshit that helps maintain high levels of corruption in many parts of the world.
Just as drug prohibition leads to gangs and street violence, limits on the movement of capital, leads to political corruption and payoffs.
Brazil and India are two of the most regulated countries in the world, in terms of licensing requirements for every fucking thing imaginable. And in both countries, the standard way of dealing with the prohibitive business regulations which ostensibly "protect" the little guy is to just pay off politicians or police.
I think leftists who defend these class-warfare-inspired attacks on business owners and "the rich" are living in la-la land. That's what I think.
I actually have a great deal of respect for many on the left, including Dr. Dawg. And if you think I'm your prototypical conservative, then I highly suggest you read the things I've been saying about them lately. 
-- I pretty much have far reaching disdain for both the left and the right.
Todd,
You just demonstrate my point. You think that economics is all "bullshit". That companies can simply afford to pay "more" and you try to paint this is a matter of competing sympathies.
You spin it as if I operate as sympathetic to the business ownerr and you're sympathetic to the worker. And that's a ridiculous position.
This is how lefties actually remind me of US Republicans and their black and white views of the world. The left is much the same, and you help me demonstrate that point with the very way in which you frame your response.
Your vision of workers struggle is as much a bullshit fantasy as George Bush's struggle for Western civilization against the axis of evil.
"James, see Honduras Constitution Article 239."
"I suspect the framers of the Honduran Constitution had concluded - after a couple of dozen Constitutions - that Presidents have a nasty habit of trying to cling to office. So they wrote that a person holding office who propose changing the Constitution to extend their term in office would immediately forfeit that office."
So what you are saying is that it is unconstitutional to even ask the question?
That strikes me as highly undemocratic.
And in any case, it doesn't seem that he even did that.
James, actually it is only the Presiddent who may not ask the question - he is, after all, an interested party.
Dawg, I can't find the smoking gun on the actual question (which is hardly surprising as I can barely read Spanish) but it appears that the Hondurans themselves concluded that his referendum was, in itself, sufficient to trigger the 239 provisions.
Now that Oscar Arias is mediating, realistically, this is going to go away with the New government in place and Zelaya pieced off. The Supreme Court is already talking about a "political amnesty" for which Zelaya will, no doubt, graciously step down.
Brock said:
"Just as drug prohibition leads to gangs and street violence, limits on the movement of capital, leads to political corruption and payoffs."
This attempt at equivalency is almost right. Prohibitions on capital lead not to corruption and payola (of which there was plenty in 19th century England, the apogee of "free capital", in any event) but rather to gangs of thugs in capital's pay and street violence.
"And in both countries, the standard way of dealing with the prohibitive business regulations which ostensibly "protect" the little guy is to just pay off politicians or police."
Curious how this "racket" permitted the "Asian tigers" to grow strong enough to compete globally; what's so different about Brazil or India wanting the same capability?
"I think leftists who defend these class-warfare-inspired attacks on business owners and 'the rich' are living in la-la land. That's what I think."
Heavens! Self-contradiction in just two sentences! I think we have a record here . . . .
"And if you think I'm your prototypical conservative"
Actually, no, Buppy: you said yourself you're a liberal, and, from what you've said, I believe you. Being pro-capitalist is hardly a fixation of conservatives.
"You think that economics is all 'bullshit'"
Can't read, can you? I said your idea about being forced to pay less for each worker in order to get more workers is bullshit. That howler was propounded by every mook with a pen in the 19th century and rightly savaged by socialists. That it keeps cropping up says much about how the bourgeois don't really pay attention to what their ideological advance troops have to say in editorials and newspaper letter-pages.
"You spin it as if I operate as sympathetic to the business ownerr and you're sympathetic to the worker. And that's a ridiculous position."
Spin?
While I certainly wear on my sleeve my loyalties, what did you say earlier?
". . . an economic and political liberal like myself . . ."
"Rather, capitalism is an economic system that is the natural state of free actors operating in a common market . . . . When governments get involved and start acting on behalf of or against commercial interests, it stops being a free market. It falls offside my own ideological outlook for what is and is not moral."
"libertarians like myself "
So, unless your illiteracy is catching through the Internet, you wrote earlier that government (and I'm presuming anything else, like unions) interfering with commercial interests ie business prevents the "free market" from operating correctly. I'm assuming you want it to operate "correctly", which is typically what businessmen want (when each doesn't add the unspoken caveat that the market works best in _his_ own interests). That seems like pro-business to me (nothing to be ashamed about; if social relations between businesses and workers didn't automatically involve exploitati
I ran across this and thought I'd pass it along. It looks at the situation from an angle that has not come up in the discussion yet.
Fergus: implicit in the argument put forward in your link is that:
"illegal national referendum to repeal the 22nd Amendment" is the same as having a non-binding referendum asking people if they would like the opportunity to vote on reviewing the constitution.
John
Actually Todd, there is no problem with unions in a free market sense. As long as membership is voluntary, and the government does not amplify the bargaining power by forcing collective bargaining as a matter of law (as they do) then I have no problem.
For me: the benchmark or legitimacy in a free market is always a measure of how voluntary a relationship between two parties is.
Unionists do not want membership to be voluntary. They demand it be mandatory. And they advocate for anti-scab laws, to force private interests to be beholden to another interest against their will.
If that's what you mean by presuming I'm anti-union, then sure. But if a group of employees were able to organize effectively in large enough numbers of their own accord and use the threat of work stoppage as leverage in bargaining for better compensation, I'm fine with that.
I see, Mike. So are you also against corporations cutting the trees in my neighbourhood? Harvesting the fish in my local waters? Polluting air and water they share with me? I volunteered for none of those things. Though a democratically elected government allows those things to happen. Should I be able to "opt out" of allowing corporations to cut my share of the trees, catch my share of the fish, pollute my share of the air, land and water, etc, as you believe some workers should be able to opt out of joining a union after a majority has voted to join?
Brock said:
"Actually Todd, there is no problem with unions in a free market sense."
So no problem with unions so long as they have no political clout.
"the benchmark or legitimacy in a free market is always a measure of how voluntary a relationship between two parties is"
You forgot to mention "Equality, Property, and Bentham".
Contracts between those who have nothing and those who have everything and the means to procure more are just a tad one-sided, don't you think?
"Unionists do not want membership to be voluntary."
That's because, if it were, the employer would simply be able to play off the unionized against the non-unionized (which is what happens in large in bourgeois society).
But, we have one thing in common: I, too, want to see unions gone.
But the correct way to do that is get rid of class society. Nothing less will be meaningful.
From this thread it's certain that currie would be the perfect person to have defended Stalin's show trials to non-Soviet critics.
I wonder if such a creature could have used hypocritical accusations of racism (against Russians) in such a case?
Lenny, you have the beginnings of a meanigful comparison there. But I'm afraid it falls short.
There's actually a lot of capitalist libertarians--believe it or not--who are sympathetic with your concerns on those issues. Many of them are in Green Parties throughout the world.
More broadly, there is plenty of discussion around the nature of enviromental impact and it's intersection with property rights in the libertarian movement.
I don't fault you for assuming my positions on the matter, but I thought I'd respond.
That being said, I am talking about a voluntary contract between two parties pertaining to membership in an organization. I think it's a stretch to say that someone taking a fish out of a pond is the same issue. You're assuming--for one--that I share your definition of collective property rights, etc.
"So no problem with unions so long as they have no political clout."
This may surprise you, but I have a problem with corporations having political clout too. I don't approve of crony capitalsm.
"Contracts between those who have nothing and those who have everything and the means to procure more are just a tad one-sided, don't you think?"
I would require quite a bit of time and words to respond to this meaningfully and in a way that would even come close to approaching that of satisfactory for you, so let's just accept that you're an egalitarian and I'm not.
"That's because, if it were, the employer would simply be able to play off the unionized against the non-unionized (which is what happens in large in bourgeois society)."
There's a few problems I have with this statement, not the least of which is that it's a Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy, but I will respond nonetheless.
Since I am not an egalitarian, I do not believe it is a moral imperative for society to even the odds of all power imbalance and remove the divisions of labour.
The division of labour is a natural consequence of capital allocation in a market.
Socialist like to view wealth as some sort of fixed pie; if some have more, others must necessarily have less. But this is only true in relative, not quantitative terms.
In fact, if everyone had the same, we'd all have less cumulative wealth, because capital would not be allocated towards the most productive ends, but rather towards the most "socially fair" ends. Contrary to any socialist belief to the contrary, these two cannot be reconciled. They are, in many ways, completely contradictory.
There has been substantial economic research into just how much wealth you can redistribute and maintain a productive economy (see: Laffer Curve) and even most leftist economists, and other extreme examples like former Soviet economic planners concede that overall productivity is compromised in any attempt to interfere with capital allocation.
I do not believe that capitalism itself is a moral thing. It is an amoral thing. It is a state of affairs in a free and open society. It is not a system that pits the wealthy against the poor. It just is.
The nature and breadth of wealth allocation in a market is an indicator of productivity in a market. Corporations go bankrupt (see: GM or Nortel) when they become unproductive, and all that wealth is redirected elsewhere. Supply and demand is the governing force.
Apple is so rich because there is a massive demand for iPods.
GM is so poor because there is a dwindling demand for low quality cars and gas guzzling SUVs.
Wealth in a market is a function of productivity. Save for the lucky ones who are born into it.
"That being said, I am talking about a voluntary contract between two parties pertaining to membership in an organization."
I'm talking about the same thing. I don't recall personally agreeing to hand over natural resources to corporations.
"I think it's a stretch to say that someone taking a fish out of a pond is the same issue."
Nice try, but I'm talking about industrial scale fishing and logging, amongst other things.
You're assuming--for one--that I share your definition of collective property rights, etc."
Maybe you don't. But then I'd be curious to know how you believe that property came to be "owned", and if you think a person is born without the right to even a space to stand in.
"Maybe you don't. But then I'd be curious to know how you believe that property came to be "owned", and if you think a person is born without the right to even a space to stand in."
I've actually written a lot about this subject, and you might actually be surprised of some of my positions on the matter:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com...f-
property.html
http://westernstandard.blogs.com...ty-part-
ii.html
I'm not interested in reading your tedious blog posts. For obvious reasons you're not going to respond to my questions.
Brock said:
"This may surprise you, but I have a problem with corporations having political clout too. I don't approve of crony capitalsm."
Well good for you! That's not what I was talking about.
"it's a Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy"
It's also history.
"The division of labour is a natural consequence of capital allocation in a market."
The division of labour predates capitalist markets. It has nothing to do with capitalism as such.
"Socialist like to view wealth as some sort of fixed pie; if some have more, others must necessarily have less."
This statement about socialists might be true, but it has nothing to do with exploitation.
I'm not talking about aggregate wealth but the means to its creation.
"capital would not be allocated towards the most productive ends"
Unless you include the creation of capital (and wealth) for capitalists' use, the term "productive" is vague and pointless.
This is my point: currently, capital is allocated towards what is profitable for capitalists; this might or might not coincide with what is rationally good for people. (It certainly isn't allocated democratically.) As far as can be reasonably determined, I want capital allocation done intelligently with humanity as a whole in mind. This requires abolishing capitalism and class society.
Even if "fairness" can't be absolutely determined to the satisfaction of all parties involved, don't you think those parties deserve at least a say in said allocation instead of leaving it up to a minority of petty dictators and oligarchs?
"There has been substantial economic research into just how much wealth you can redistribute and maintain a productive economy (see: Laffer Curve)"
This is rather like arguing that, because the Vatican has done much research on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and have arrived at a definitive answer, all must bow before the depth of its erudition on the movement of the celestial bodies.
As "productive economy" was defined by a right-wing supply-sider hired by Reagan, you'll forgive me if I don't automatically take his assumptions as given.
"It [capitalism] just is."
Straight out of Storch and Ramsay. Unbelievable.
As for capitalism being morally neutral, any class society that exists through exploitation can't be said to be "morally neutral": it has the morals of its ruling class.
I'll forgo the rest of your post as you're just repeating the same thing over and over again (which I wasn't even arguing against).
"It's also history."
But Todd, Brock doesn't care about history or consequences, he's got a pristine ideology that exists outside of reality.
And by the way, Brock, Todds argument was not an "appeal to consequences" fallacy. He wasn't arguing against any "truth" because the results of that truth were undesirable. He was arguing against the results of a policy you were advocating.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
