"Democracy is the most important thing to maintain, above ideology."
I never thought I was ever going to hear that from a Chavez supporter, ever. I am glad to see it is possible.
Now like Tosh about Venezuela, I have little knowledge about Honduras. What are the people in the streets saying? Is the Hondurean CNE as corrupt as the one in Venezuela?
Why did the president refuse to accept what the congress said? Why did he refuse to accept what the supreme court said?
Question:
If a president goes against the Constitution, the Congress and the CNE, can we say that in practice there is a democracy?
Impartial,
Democracy is defined by Flanker as whatever side Chavez is supporting or whatever side supports Chavez.
"Democracy is the most important thing to maintain, above ideology."
I totally agree. Well put.
Zelaya disobeyed the electoral authority AND congress in order to hold his referendum. The armed forces did exactly what they were supposed to do: defend the constitution.
And yes, this escualido at least only condemns Carmona's dictatorial power-grab, but not the removal of Chavez after he ordered the activation of Plan Avila.
Chavista foreign policy has always been extremely hypocritical:
- just imagine what Chávez would have done if, say, the DC or Zulia had gone ahead with the consultative vote on centralisation despite the CNE's contention that it was impossible; very likely, military intervention and detention of the responsible
- did Chávez ever condemn the unconstitutional consultation in Honduras? He surely did when that was the case in Bolivia
- Chavistas keep talking about non-intervention and sovereignty, yet they are more and more overtly intervening where they please, even threatening military intervention (!)
I do though condemn what seems to be an unconstitutional government change in Honduras. The president that acted against Constitution and parliament should have been destituted according to the legal framework regulating this, which could well have happened next week. It seems that he wanted to prevent this by recklessly going ahead with the illegal constitution...
ERRATUM: *going ahead with the illegal consultation
"- just imagine what Chávez would have done if, say, the DC or Zulia had gone ahead with the consultative vote on centralisation despite the CNE's contention that it was impossible; very likely, military intervention and detention of the responsible"
Look I do not know what the new Chavez would do, the one that is supposedly not a "pendejo". But the same thing already happened here and the old Chavez did what was the responsible thing to do, he claimed the early referendum revocatorio was non-binding, just what Zelaya claimed.
To prevent a legal poll of public opinion (whether it be binding or non-binding) is anti-democratic.
If the people in Zulia want a referendum on self-rule they have every right to hold it, now for it to be binding is another story.
"
- Chavistas keep talking about non-intervention and sovereignty, yet they are more and more overtly intervening where they please, even threatening military intervention (!)"
Yes it is hypocracy, but even though I would consider it a weak ass excuse, the claim is war if our sovereignty is violated, not the coup itself.
Ok, since the president's consultation was illegal then let's send an army commando to his house, kidnap him, deny him access to a legal advisor, force him into exile, shut down the independent media sources, imprison his political allies, lie about his resignation and impose a curfew.
And they did this to "protect democracy".
Double-speak neves ceases to put a smile on my face.
Flanker, Chávez in all likelihood would not have tolerated a consultative referendum in the DC or in Zulia, I cannot though prove it as it is counterfactual. And, to be consequent, you then would also have to qualify the CNE undemocratic as it did exactly impede "a legal poll of public opinion (whether it be binding or non-binding)", which you qualified as "anti-democratic".
Yes it is hypocracy, but even though I would consider it a weak ass excuse, the claim is war if our sovereignty is violated, not the coup itself.
Flanker | 06.28.09 - 3:43 pm | #
Well, saying that they would "disempower" any president other than Zelaya hints at military intervention threat.
Domingo, were you in Venezuela in 1992? Apparently not and you were not on Earth back then.
"Flanker, Chávez in all likelihood would not have tolerated a consultative referendum in the DC or in Zulia, I cannot though prove it as it is counterfactual. And, to be consequent, you then would also have to qualify the CNE undemocratic as it did exactly impede "a legal poll of public opinion (whether it be binding or non-binding)", which you qualified as "anti-democratic"."
Look the opposition did want a consultative referendum in Zulia and DC, and the CNE said no, however there is nothing stopping them from asking Sumate to do this and if Chavez intervened I would indeed speak out against it.
A non-binding referendum is no more and no less than an expensive opinion poll, you ban this you might as well ban polling, and violate freespeech which exists primarily because speech is non-binding.
I think this will last less than Carmona's.
"and violate freespeech which exists primarily because speech is non-binding."
Why could we not quote Bolivar's words about a president wanting to perpetuate himself in power?
The CNE and government intervened. Even the cops intervened to prohibit that.
I don't doubt that many of the regulars here are genuinely in favor of democracy - whatever that may be.
"Democracy" is a polysemic concept. What I understand as democracy is probably not the same to what a person from the US, South-Africa, France, Colombia or whichever other country does.
Many of those beliefs are inextricably attached to deep ideological conceptions.
Take a look at the comments section of any article pertaining Hondura's coup in eltiempo.com or at any other major newspaper and you'll see people applauding this action as a measure to stop the spread of the left in Latin America, regardless if its a legal action or not... how "true rightist democracy" has been reinstated.
Hypocrisy? Yes, probably. Every country defends its interest locally and abroad. Isn't that what the Canadian government does when it defends Canadian construction companies build in occupied Palestinian territory? or Germany when it sends troops to Afghanistan? or the US when it trains Latin American military officers in the SOA/ WHINSEC (the ones that later grab the power by force, like in Honduras)?
I was in Venezuela in 1992 though I was no more than a kid. I remember I was very scared of the coups and I was glad that they didn't succeed (I am glad even now that they didn't succeed).
Carlos Andres's staying in power meant that he got to be tried for corruption. The rebellious militaries went to jail, they formed a political faction that participated in clean elections and they won (either you agreed with Caldera to pardon them or not).
So, your point is?
"Why could we not quote Bolivar's words about a president wanting to perpetuate himself in power?
The CNE and government intervened. Even the cops intervened to prohibit that."
I hate stupid laws that micromanage bullshit, so no support from me, that said at least it was temporary.
"Many of those beliefs are inextricably attached to deep ideological conceptions."
Look I understand that there are some nutjobs out there, but democracy is the will of the people, and while crazy people online are fanatics, at least rightwing governments are calling something for what it is.
Chavez OTOH is taking a massively flawed election in Iran as evidence of democracy, while he whined about the flawed election in Mexico initially.
This was a coup, and the only thing worse is a Pinochet like repression, but we also have to watch out for people that may fall out of favor and still claim they won their flawed elections.
I know... you want Honduran militaries to reinstate the legitimate president and have them in jail so that they can purge their crimes and let the courts decide if Zelaya should be tried for his alleged crimes.
"Look the opposition did want a consultative referendum in Zulia and DC, and the CNE said no, however there is nothing stopping them from asking Sumate to do this and if Chavez intervened I would indeed speak out against it."
Interesting. Still, in all probability the government would not have let them do it...
"A non-binding referendum is no more and no less than an expensive opinion poll, you ban this you might as well ban polling, and violate freespeech which exists primarily because speech is non-binding."
Problem is that the Constitution of Honduras apparently prohibits this, so you have to heed this. If it was meant to be just an "opinion poll" then Zelaya could just have commissioned one with a sufficiently large sample, so as to be representative. I don't think that you are as naive as to believe that the "consultation" had a different intention...
Domingo,
Don't pretend your concept of democracy is the concept of democracy of "Venezuelans". It is only of some part of Venezuelans and not "the majority", as you think you have.
CNE notwithstanding.
"Interesting. Still, in all probability the government would not have let them do it... "
Speculation, and a an indictment on the opposition for not thinking this thing through, and forcing him to play his hand.
"
Problem is that the Constitution of Honduras apparently prohibits this, so you have to heed this. If it was meant to be just an "opinion poll" then Zelaya could just have commissioned one with a sufficiently large sample, so as to be representative. I don't think that you are as naive as to believe that the "consultation" had a different intention..."
Look I have no illusion on Zelaya being anything other than selfish, same for Chavez, same for the Opposition in both Venezuela and Honduras.
However you have to look at just the facts and determine what is wrong here. A non-binding referendum is the pinacle of freespeech, a collective freespeech devoid of biases (if done right by an electoral authority) or even with bias if done by sumate. But freespeech is not without bias.
This is a blatant coup, and we see the supporters of oligarchy (who see the majority as a threat to be subdued) express support for this repression.
Flanker, keep in mind that is the US that has illegally invaded, murdered tens of thousands, and imposed puppets. Chavez supporting Iran against US imperialist agression is not hypocritical. More, Chavez's support is never unconditional--in that he is not supporting the current repression in Iran.
Democracy is about the will of the majority of the people. Therefore, not allowing a non-binding poll simply shows the goals of the Hondurean oligarchy to be blatantly against the people.
What they fear the most is a mobilized, organized population learning to use democratic action to alter the status quo in a more efficacious direction.
We might have to help liberate Honduras from the clutches of this vile oligarchy.
Two companeros of mine in Honduras are currently under arrest. Both of them members of an active teacher's union.
In neoliberal speak democracy=totalitarianism and vice versa. Pathetic, but predictable.
Flanker, thanks for opening a new thread. Ow is still mired in his contradictions and lingering depression. (When I observed him kissing up to Daniel and Quico and thier sqaulid allies on the right, it made me cringe. One has to have dignity and tenacity. Consumerism in the age of ecological catastrophe is a disease.)
"Speculation, and a an indictment on the opposition for not thinking this thing through, and forcing him to play his hand."
Well, you know that the CNE votes 4-1 most of the time and the government had absolutely no interest of this referendum going ahead. And, judging by its discourse, they would not have let it go ahead, it was just not worth it to try so for the opposition given the government reaction, which would probably have been to imprison the governor.
"frees peech"
You can say that it is an issue about free speech. However, if the constitution prohibits this kind of "free speech" you have to conform to it, as simple as that...
Flanker, given the built-in contradictions with identity in Western thinking, I would have to extrapolate and qualify the assignation of 'selfish'.
Is it selfish to believe that one's leadership is necessary and crucial to advance politics that more democratically addresses people's needs.
To equate left populists with the oligarchy is to resort to a very stultifying form of reductionism. Nuances need to be made clearer--as democracy is a dynamic, informational process, not an alienated, abstracted 'thing'.
Sire, any constitution that prohibits aspects of it being changed, ever, is ludicrously undemocratic on its face.
This is a constitution that was written only by the olilgarchy--not with the participation of any parties that represent the impoverished, oppressed majority. Therefore it should be abolished and a new, more democratically-formed/informed constituion will have to be put in its place. To the flames with that rancid constitution.
I have a feeling that events in Honduras portend well for increasing the process of democracy in that nation. But if we have to send troops (the forces of progress and democracy), we should all do what we can.
You are living in the times of Slave revolt--check you weapons, stoke the fire, light your torches, ride!
"Flanker, keep in mind that is the US that has illegally invaded, murdered tens of thousands, and imposed puppets. Chavez supporting Iran against US imperialist agression is not hypocritical. More, Chavez's support is never unconditional--in that he is not supporting the current repression in Iran."
And hopefully he never does support the repression, as for anti-imperialism, is it really valid? I mean will people always have the anti-imperialism excuse even when the evidence is stacked against it? the US ambassador to Honduras went so far as to claim they will not recognize anyone but Zelaya. I am sure the "anti-imperialists" too believe the coup was backed by Washington as Chavez hinted ever so slightly today.
"We might have to help liberate Honduras from the clutches of this vile oligarchy."
This I disagree, it is up to the people of Honduras to return to democracy, any foreign agents is inmoral and yes imperialistic.
"which would probably have been to imprison the governor. "
The governor has inmunity.
"You can say that it is an issue about free speech. However, if the constitution prohibits this kind of "free speech" you have to conform to it, as simple as that..."
Sorry, all forms of non-violent speech is acceptable, always, screw the law.
"Is it selfish to believe that one's leadership is necessary and crucial to advance politics that more democratically addresses people's needs."
Sorry, but I am a realist, the day I see Chavez give up power in the pinnacle of his career it will be the day I believe this. Until then I place my faith in the people as opposed to individuals.
I disagree--was it imperialist for people to align with the German left to subvert Hiter and the Nazis? Of course not.
Was it immoral for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to go to Spain and defend the democratic government against Franco and his facsist allies. Indeed, no--this was heroic, even if they lost.
Nations are not separated from all the other peoples of the earth. Identities are always provisional and quasi-fictional.
Is it immoral to align with indiginous people fighting to save rainforests?
I would advise that these issues are not black and white--they are far more nuanced. The reality we experience unfolds, it is dynamic, and language always lags behind the emotional impulses and 'tones' that undergird our 'reality'.
Imperialism or neo-imperialism means controlling a nation from afar, or at least attempting to do so.
If we send troops to reinstate Zelaya it is imperialism, voice an opinion? do so it is non-binding, but change the outcome and you are no better than the US. (not that the US would even allow such adventurism in their own "backyard").
My guess is that Chavez was speaking about sending troops as a warning to the Hondurean dictatorship to not harm its diplomats. And I agree that nation-states are different that individuals and people.
The US already has a military base(s) in Honduras, however. The Hondurean military and oligarchy is simply doing the bidding of their Yankee masters (to some degree).
The reality is that democratically inclined countries should do every thing in their power to align with groups fighting the military dictatorship in Honduras. Do they sit idly by while deathsquads terrorize peasants?
'
Again, being 'principled' in the face of oppression is simply to be pathetic. But any action needs to be thoughtout. Thankfully, the political reality on the ground in the Americas has significantly changed. Chavez deserves alot of credit for this--if it was up to pro-US liberals the popular movements would always live under the boot of the oligarchy.
"The governor has immunity."
As if the government cared about this 
"Sorry, all forms of non-violent speech is acceptable, always, screw the law."
Well, historical circumstances have limited this specific instance of "free speech" in Honduras and you will have to accept that, including their president...
Finally, it seems that parliament has destituted the president... I wonder why did not do so constitutionally with an extraordinary session once they realised that he would not comply with the prohibition of the consultation vote by parliament and the judicial branch...now, if re-instated, he will have little problem in forcing all powers to resign and instate loyal lackeys in all branches of government...
This quickly sums up the antecedents for those unfamiliar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Man...he_constitution
"Do they sit idly by while deathsquads terrorize peasants?"
There are no death squads. Get a grip.
OW,
I think you have reached the point where you just make posts to see the bickering back and forth in the comments section.
Democracy is the most important thing to maintain, above ideology.
Maybe we should be looking at home where a lot of undemocratic things are happening in the name of ideology.
In fairness to OW, he didn't make the current post, Flanker did.
If a president goes against the Constitution, the Congress and the CNE, can we say that in practice there is a democracy?
Impartial | 06.28.09 - 1:22 pm | #
This is nonsense. The president was simply asking the people if they wanted to CHANGE the constitution.
If it is illegal for the people of the country to make changes to their constitution, then that constitution is obviously not worth the paper it is written on is it?
Do I have to remind you of all the horrible injusticies that have been justified by constitutions? All constitutions must be changeable if the people decide that they want to change it in a democratic fashion.
What is undemocratic is not allowing the people to decide if they want to change it or not. Not allowing the nation to even vote on it is indeed very undemocratic and shows an obvious fear of what the people might decide.
Sire, your example with Zulia and Bolivia is also total nonsense. Those referendums were not to change the constitution, they were to break the country apart and allow regions to separate from the federal government. These were referendum that were only going to allow one small region to vote on an issue. If you had a national referendum on the issue of Zulia there would be no problem, because the majority would be able to make the decision, not a minority from an exclusive region.
It is pretty revealing to see the Venezuelan opposition is still supporting illegal coups. I suppose they are all believing that Zelaya's "resignation letter" is also legitimate, right?
I thought you guys said that the Venezuelan opposition is different than the 2002 opposition? Apparently not.
This is nonsense. The president was simply asking the people if they wanted to CHANGE the constitution.
Given that the Honduran constitution is very clear on what can and cannot be modified on it, if Zelaya wanted to go over it, he should have worked on getting support from the legislative and judicial branches, as well as his voters. Simply saying "I'm doing what I want, fuck all y'all" is not the way to go, as the now ex-president can attest to.
Tosh,
"That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do. "
Cont.
"The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica. "
Whatever Kepler and the rest of his oposition cohorts say to justify removing Zelaya the fact is that the OAS has condemned this action as a coup and Ban-Ki Moon on the UN also said it was a criminal act.
As far as the Venezuelan opposition goes, read Noticias24 comments - there were thousands and the vast majority supported the coup and called on the Venezuelan military to follow the example.
In my opinion Noticias24 should be shut down now for allowing epole to call openly for a coup in Venezuela yesterday. this has nothing to do with freedom of expression abd is nothing more than sedition.
Go for it and we can all haqve a bloodbath in Eastern Caracas and north Valencia.
THIS IS WHY WE NEED THE POPULAR MILITIAS WELL ARMED SO THAT ANY STUPID BASTARDS WHJO WANT A COUP AND TRY TO CARRY IT OUT WILL BE FACED DOWN BY TROOPS LOYAL TO TEH CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE AND THE PATRIA.
In the Honduran Constitution plebiscites are allowed with a whole load of restrictions since they are BINDING. This referendum was consultative and hence not binding. If the puelo had said "yes" then Zelaya's government would have presented reforms to the Congress to be approved or not.
Hence, since Zelaya is not popular with the oligarchy and the media owners, they set up a coup to remove him.
No one is going to tell me that a consultative referendum can be illegal?
Once again lies abound with media manipulation and a letter which Zelaya supposedly signed to resign which caused the Congress to approve his resignation, or removal. This sounds so familiar.
The lack of information and the cutting of communications is very worrying. How many people will be massacred this time?
This coup will faiol in one way or another and thge last point is - if Zelaya, according to media from his own country was so "unopular" why did the opposition want to stop the referendum? Simply because they were lying.
I don't think they should have ousted Zelaya and shipped him to Costa Rica. He should have been impeached, arrested and taken in for trial.
HOWEVER.
Zelaya was forcing the country to accept a process that obviated the Electoral Tribunal, with ballot boxes flown in already printed from a foreign country, with no electoral roll to check off a voter's name after voting, with the ballots being counted by some entity other than the Electoral Tribunal.
He had no authority to call on a referendum like that.
So Zelaya committed a big mistake by thinking he could do whatever he wanted.
Also, you can read article 4 2of the Honduran constitution.
Anon,
Armed militias do no good. Uninformed militias can be manipulated, checks and balances is what is needed.
(PS: Zelaya has less than 30% approval).
if Zelaya, according to media from his own country was so "unopular" why did the opposition want to stop the referendum?
Because selective application of the law is the road to disaster, and the Hondurans were smart enough to prevent it from happening. The law should apply to everyone, presidents included.
"selective application of the law is the road to disaster"
I think I will start putting an eye on those Honduran laws that allow to kidnap elected officers, forcefully deport, incarcerate at will the opposition and diplomatic officers, present false documents as proof, shut down the media, etc.
You guys are so laughable
"Because selective application of the law is the road to disaster, and the Hondurans were smart enough to prevent it from happening." wtf are you talking about?
"In my opinion Noticias24 should be shut down now for allowing epole to call openly for a coup in Venezuela yesterday. this has nothing to do with freedom of expression abd is nothing more than sedition."
Err no, calm the fuck down, it is people like you and Mario Silva that actually make me worry for the future of Venezuela. All irrational, fear, hate etc.
The fact that Chavez is starting to inch towards this wing is enough to drive anyone into a depression.
"(PS: Zelaya has less than 30% approval)."
If this were true then why fear a non-binding referendum? If you fear manipulation then make it non-binding but backed by the CNE equivalent.
"Because selective application of the law is the road to disaster, and the Hondurans were smart enough to prevent it from happening. The law should apply to everyone, presidents included."
I presume there is free speech in Honduras, and if there is not then it is ok to break that law.
PS: Zelaya has less than 30% approval).
ElTank | 06.29.09 - 2:35 pm | #
OK. So what was the fear of letting a consultative fully democratic referndum go ahead which was not binding?
Either you want to promore democracy or not and since it does not suit the oligarchs to do so they organize a coup - and this would never have been done without US approval.
Interesting that on the BBc web site the comments - or almost all of them - support the removal of Zelaya. I wonder if this is because the poor who support him do not have access to internet and are also probably not polled in the 30% support for Zelaya which Tank mentions.
If this were true then why fear a non-binding referendum? If you fear manipulation then make it non-binding but backed by the CNE equivalent.
Im with you Flanker.
I cant think of several reasons of why the Hondurean institutions did what they did. I think they could have archieved the same result handling it a lot better.
*can
Sorry Flanker, media which calls for coups and instigates people to break the law ( even blocking the road) should be closed down and the owners/directors put on trial.
If you want order in a country like venezuela this is the only language these people understand having been spoiled by a diet of impunity for 10 years.
Anon, you are psycho. Thank god you have no actual power.
You are one of those zealots who run around calling for the executions of the 2002 coupsters, the clousure of Globovision and more armed militias. Conflict, conflict and more conflict which will not lead to progress.
ElTank - 1) there is no death penalty in Venezuela abolished in 1864 but2) the consitutional guarantees could have been suspended. 3) in Geramny, where Kepler lives, you can bet your last euro that the coup perpetrators on 2002, if it had been in Germany, would still be behind bars.
Unfoertunaely the private media is still open in Venezuela and I agree the Gómez of Aporrea that all private TV and radio stations should only be available on cable/satellite.
The espectro radioelectrico should be for the people not for media owners.
You don't negotiate with coupsters, you wipe them out if you can.
You don't negotiate with coupsters, you wipe them out if you can.
That's what a lot of empires and dictators have said.
all private TV and radio stations should only be available on cable/satellite.
And of course, when your government can use all of the media to promote itself and accepts no dissidence you would have 24/7 pro-government brainwashing going on.
This coupsters really think what they're doing is going to help their cause?
No country or institution in the entire world is going to side with the Honduran military for a simple reason: The recipe for destabilization lacked some serious motive behind like having a bunch gunmen killing unarmed marchers under a bridge, shutting down a free loving tv channel, supporting and hosting terrorist organizations, buying Uranium from Niger, building nuclear weapons or whatever other reason the powerful ones love to invoke when overthrowing a president, true or not.
On the contrary, any alleged crime that the Zelaya could have perpetrated was equally matched by the same guys who overthrew them, so they are in equal terms.
The guys managed to:
Give more steam to the left; refresh in everybody's mind the disastrous effects that had for the credibility of Venezuela’s opposition the events post April 11th (and for the entire country); reminded everyone how dangerous can be the ill-spewing msm; it was the perfect occasion to have our right-wing opposition to show (once again) their true colors; made everybody doubt about the claims of Zelaya having only “30% of popular support” (I mean, common, wouldn’t it have been better in terms of political gains to let the guy just fail miserably at the ballot boxes?).
Zelaya had against him the courts, the press, the church, the military, the Congress, his own party and (supposedly) the Honduran people and in a couple of days they managed to give him the public back-up of OAS, UN, Alba, Unasur, Grupo de Río, Human Rights Watch, EU, SICA… hahahahaha Talking about leverage here.
They even put in the map how retrograde is Hondura’s constitution.
Thanks to you all (you know who), really (and I mean this): At the end, we surely won’t be able to make it without you.
"Gravatar Sorry Flanker, media which calls for coups and instigates people to break the law ( even blocking the road) should be closed down and the owners/directors put on trial. "
Again no, even the supreme court ruled that for there to be violent speech there has to be a realistic actual threat of violence, none of this nitpicking bolony looking for the excuse, just the excuse to shut somebody down.
"If you want order in a country like venezuela this is the only language these people understand having been spoiled by a diet of impunity for 10 years."
How can you possibly want order when the country is running amok with criminals? Chavez wants order? start with street crime. Chavez wants to sort out corruption? start with his side first.
I hate convenient excuses made to control, if you really want order then prove it. It is like how the US used to like democracy for enemies but never for allies.
"Unfoertunaely the private media is still open in Venezuela and I agree the Gómez of Aporrea that all private TV and radio stations should only be available on cable/satellite."
Well guess what Noticias24 is on "cable/satellite" as well, yet you claim you want them closed.
I cant believe I agree with Domingo on how poorly the Honduran institutions handled Zelaya.
However, I wouldn't give OAS, UN, Alba, Unasur, Grupo de Río, Human Rights Watch, EU, SICA much "weight". After all, both the OEA and UN have allowed democracy to be destroyed in all of South America (From Argentina to Colombia and now to Honduras). ALBA is meaningless.
Pretty much agree with Flanker. Its easy to always place the blame on someone else, when you are the to lead by example.
"
Give more steam to the left; refresh in everybody's mind the disastrous effects that had for the credibility of Venezuela’s opposition the events post April 11th (and for the entire country); reminded everyone how dangerous can be the ill-spewing msm; it was the perfect occasion to have our right-wing opposition to show (once again) their true colors; made everybody doubt about the claims of Zelaya having only “30% of popular support” (I mean, common, wouldn’t it have been better in terms of political gains to let the guy just fail miserably at the ballot boxes?)."
I really wanted to believe that people did change, that they understood how coups were not the answer, but having people here and Francisco defending this as constitutional still makes me wonder if the right could really be trusted or just biding for the right time.
This was not constitutional, even if the supreme court deems it a power vacuum like in here.
That said I see Chavez moving towards the intolerant side of the spectrum too. For every whine about amnesty, peace and love. I prefer the Chavez that looked mortal (2008ish) to the current iteration.
That said I see Chavez moving towards the intolerant side of the spectrum too. For every whine about amnesty, peace and love. I prefer the Chavez that looked mortal (2008ish) to the current iteration.
How about the Chavez from 1998? Remember that guy? A totally different person.
"Vamos a derrocar a el gobierno que se monte en Honduras?"
And he has the balls to criticize the US, Bush and the "Empire"?
Who are we now?
"Team Venezuela: World Police"?
No Flanker - you do not let the rich off the hook since you have to deal with "street crime first". Why?
As far as Noticias24 goes, it's offices are in Chacao and it is run from Venezuela. This means it comes under the jurisdiction of the law, which should have its full weight applied to it.
Incitement to commit criminal acts cannot be let go unchallenged. That's why the R. Poleo episoade will contribute to the closing of Globo.
Jesus, all we radicals are askingh for is for the media - including the state media - to obey the laws of the country. Is that too much to ask?
"How about the Chavez from 1998? Remember that guy? A totally different person."
Yes a totally different person, but firebrand and stupid. I prefer a bridge builder even if he is toxic himself over more of the same inching for more power and the other side inching for an opportunity to strike with a coup.
" No Flanker - you do not let the rich off the hook since you have to deal with "street crime first". Why?"
Because one KILLS for craps sake... killing is PERMANENT and that is why it is the most important thing to solve. You worried that a rich fat cat is stealing from the people? (if you really believe this is happening) no problem since you can steal it right back later. Not so in reviving somebody after they have been mortally shot.
"As far as Noticias24 goes, it's offices are in Chacao and it is run from Venezuela. This means it comes under the jurisdiction of the law, which should have its full weight applied to it."
Justice is either blind or it is not just. Just like Bush "promoted" democracy in Venezuela but not Egypt, it is just an excuse and I LOATHE being lied to. I am at a stage in life where I want things proven, prove to me that Zelaya was violating the constitution, prove to me that Chavez wants true justice. It was the same crap with TVes it was supposed to be an independently produced station, but it turned out to be more papista que VTV itself, and that is creepy.
"Jesus, all we radicals are askingh for is for the media - including the state media - to obey the laws of the country. Is that too much to ask?"
Well the state media has to go first, that is the crux of the matter, the old excuse was that the private hostile media just overwhelmed them, but they keep harping that excuse when it is no longer the same, there is balance in the TV media today from neutral stations to an equal amount of stations that are polarized to each side.
So when Chavez sends Globo to cable (and who knows now if cable will be free if we are to believe Diosdado) then he will not set his sights on VTV, it will be whatever is left on the moderate slate.
I feel like a classical definition of a conservative, I see one side pulling in a direction I do not wish to go, and the other pulling on the other direction. To the point where I wish I could just stop both of them and tell them they have enough power already.
Ano,
In Germany there was a worse guy. It is dangerous to compare Hugo Chavez with that guy, even if
a) that guy was also a national socialist
b) that guy changed the name of the country, the flag and added one to the "regime" (Third Reich, as opposed to V República)
c) that guy said his system would last a thousand years
d) that guy used such words as "anger of the people" (Zorn des Volkes, ira del pueblo) to justify mobs
e) that guy was a failed painter
f) that guy had failed relationships with women
g) that guy saw all the time complots from the Evil Capitalism
(I won't mention left-handedness because Bach and several US presidents were left-handed).
It is difficult to compare that guy to Chavez because there is a big difference: that other guy wanted the total destruction of ethnic groups, whereas Chavez only wants the total destruction of "oligarchs" and the first one was a racist and Chavez is only an embittered resentido social
(and mind: my family has a much humble background than Chavez's)
Now, why can't 2002 have happened in Germany now?
Because a Chavez can't happen in the first place, not now. Why?
Chavez can't happen since 1949 because 1) Germany has a great constitution and a lot of checks of power.
In Germany the chancellor does not have anything to play in the Bundesländer, it is a very federal system
2) In Germany the public TV stations are highly critical of both government and opposition.
I wish you could speak German and listen how they grill politicians of all parties.
3) In Germany the judiciary is not a political tool
4) In Germany the electoral system is clean, they have now even stopped the e voting for something much much much stupid than anything that has happened in Venezuela (where the paper trail of the Anzoategui Chavista governor, of Aristobulo Izturiz and Chavez Senior showed the wrong results as for many more opposition, where the votes of people like me, who vote abroad, do not get counted even if Maduro says WE, VENEZUELANS REGISTERED ABROAD, HAVE FUCKING SIGNED, FUCKING SIGN-ED A PETITION SUPPORTING CHAVEZ (even if in reality over 90% of us opposed the referendum)
5) In Germany there is a parliamentary system, which is a hell of a lot of a difference, where the chancellor can be questioned time after time by the parliament. There is not a single democratic country with a pure presidential system without limit of election (no, not even France has such a system).
Well...in Germany that guy I mentioned earlier who should not be compared to Chavez tried to organize a coup in 1923, but he failed, he went to jail, he wrote a crappy book, he read a lot and he was pardoned. I don't think he would have been pardoned in the current Federal German Republic.
Who says anybody has changed? You used the word "hypocrisy" and tell me who's more hypocritical here?
I applaud your critical sense and I understand some of your frustrations, but you cannot loose the sense of perspective.
Take a look at Iran, for instance. Ahmadineyad is an asshole and I seriously think that, in part, there were genuine and legitimate aspirations for change in most of the protestors (appart from the usual suspect agitators).
Now, have you taken a look at a Asian geo-political map lately? what do you see? What are Iran's neighbors and what has happened / is happening to them? You have war in Irak, war in Afghanistan, war in Pakistan, a recent war in Georgia, a hostile nuclear-armed Israel (that recently had wars with Lebanon and the Palestine authority).
Plus you have a bunch of American and European countries threatening you and condemning you for your humans right's record while looking away at other of your neighbor's own records (like Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, let alone Israel).
Your biggest all-time foe (the one that put a dictatorship decades ago in place, armed your other neighbor to engage in a devastating 8 year war against you, and whose previous president authorized a provision to allow one of its many "intelligence" agencies to carry out destabilizing acts within your country) is one of the threatening ones.
And you have this other really nice newly-elected president that loves peace while approving record amounts of money to continue and expand those wars around your country.
What do you expect is going to be the Iranian's government reaction to a bunch of guys protesting chants, not in farsi but in english?
Help Iranians help themselves... stop messing with them and threatening them. At that moment any legitimate pursual of change won't be twisted into an international conspiracy.
The same applies with Venezuela and Latin America in general. Stop harboring Posada Carriles, stop sending money through NED to all this so-called NGO's, stop fueling war in Colombia through Plan Colombia...
Now back to reality. It won't happen. I think you could accept certain degree of "hypocrisy" by the Venezuelan government.
"a) that guy was also a national socialist"
Kepler "national socialist" is not what you think it means, in short it is closer to your ideology than Chavez's undefined state owning the means of production.
That above was for flanker
"Take a look at Iran, for instance. Ahmadineyad is an asshole and I seriously think that, in part, there were genuine and legitimate aspirations for change in most of the protestors (appart from the usual suspect agitators).
Now, have you taken a look at a Asian geo-political map lately? what do you see? What are Iran's neighbors and what has happened / is happening to them? You have war in Irak, war in Afghanistan, war in Pakistan, a recent war in Georgia, a hostile nuclear-armed Israel (that recently had wars with Lebanon and the Palestine authority).
Plus you have a bunch of American and European countries threatening you and condemning you for your humans right's record while looking away at other of your neighbor's own records (like Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, let alone Israel).
Your biggest all-time foe (the one that put a dictatorship decades ago in place, armed your other neighbor to engage in a devastating 8 year war against you, and whose previous president authorized a provision to allow one of its many "intelligence" agencies to carry out destabilizing acts within your country) is one of the threatening ones. "
Again this is a nonissue because again things have changed.
Afghanistan and the Taleban were ENEMIES, Iraq and Hussein were ENEMIES. Today they are friends (due to Bush incompetence not intent) so much so that they congratulated Ahma when only Chavez did.
Then you have the US boogieman that suffers criticism and popularity points in order to remain neutral, yet you still blame him for the so called insurrection, like Chavez and the Ayotollahs did.
I am sorry but at some point the justification for being nasty only becomes a convenient excuse. Look at Gollinger calling this the first Obama coup, could she really believe that? Or is she laying the groundwork?
Oh Flanker, Flanker...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/
theblot...authorizes.html
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...-tweets-coming/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle6451892.ece
I could find like a thousand other examples for you, but since you are so certain of your convictions...
Kepler - thanks for the "history lesson". I used Geramny as an example, you asshole, to illustarte a country where there is rule of law. Perhaps you should read before shooting from the hip.
BTW - Ronald Reagan was a FAILED actor but that does not make him like Hitler, who was a FAILED painter. Your pretzel logic is not even funny its tragic for you.
"Afghanistan and the Taleban were ENEMIES, Iraq and Hussein were ENEMIES. Today they are friends (due to Bush incompetence not intent) so much so that they congratulated Ahma when only Chavez did."
Therefore the US cannot intervene in Iran? I didn't get this very well...
"when only Chavez did"... You make it sound a such pathetically lonesome act.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/...sk/
LG233687.htm
Of course he congratulated him, they are allies. Who did you want to congratulate Ahmadineyad? Tony Saca? Felipe Calderón? some other American lacky?
Domingo - say it out loud - Obama is turning into Bush no 3 or is it no. 4?
Letting off CIA torturers and allowing drones to bomb Pkisyani innocents is enough proff of the fucking stinking hypocricy he represents. Trials still continuing for Guantanamo inmates as well.
Remember " YES WE CAN", "CHANGE", WE ALL ALL GATHERED HERE", and so on. Like some precher who we are forgot is beholden to the corporations and his Wall Street Jew loving cabinet team dedicated to loving the finanmcial institutions which has destroyed the US's "médula" and almost given Israel carte blanche to start a nuclear war.
I see that the groundwork is indeed being laid... by anon...
"Therefore the US cannot intervene in Iran? I didn't get this very well..."
It is not impossible but there is no longer any credible evidence of this even when they take heat for not being bellicose enough, at some point a boogieman becomes just a myth.
""when only Chavez did"... You make it sound a such pathetically lonesome act."
NOT on the first day, Venezuela Iraq and Afghanistan where the only 3 to do so immediately.
"to the corporations and his Wall Street Jew loving cabinet team dedicated to loving the finanmcial institutions which has destroyed the US's "médula" and almost given Israel carte blanche to start a nuclear war."
Oh great... could you have fitted more racist stereotypes in this sentence? what about the hooked nose?
Flanker - don't exagerate - there is only one stereotipe in that sentence. 
Zelaya was forcing the country to accept a process that obviated the Electoral Tribunal, with ballot boxes flown in already printed from a foreign country, with no electoral roll to check off a voter's name after voting, with the ballots being counted by some entity other than the Electoral Tribunal.
He had no authority to call on a referendum like that.
So Zelaya committed a big mistake by thinking he could do whatever he wanted.
Oh, I see Tank. So your position is that Zelaya should have allowed the oligarchy-controlled Congress to block a consulta popular? I repeat, a CONSULTA popular. It wasn't even a binding vote.
All it would do was ask the people if they want to change the constitution. If the purpose of the Congress it to represent the people, then why would they oppose consulting the very people that they supposedly represent?
There is only one answer to this: Because they are undemocratic.
that wasn't my racist stereotype btw
Look at Gollinger calling this the first Obama coup, could she really believe that? Or is she laying the groundwork?
Flanker | 06.29.09 - 4:18 pm | #
Flanker, it is not unreasonable to think that the US government had involvement here. Probably not Obama directly, but the intelligence apparatus definitely could have been involved.
Remember that USAID pumps millions to the Honduran military, and the US has a long-standing relationship with them. You know, the same military that just kidnapped the president.
Tosh - 500 US military on Honduran soil. Ngo's and electoral education people receove around US$50 million per year.
This coup is going to fail despite all the bravado and worship by the oppsoition who in their minds think that this is Venezuela. and not Honduras.
Ano, there is something called sarcasm, you don't understand what it is.
"Flanker, it is not unreasonable to think that the US government had involvement here. Probably not Obama directly, but the intelligence apparatus definitely could have been involved."
It is not unreasonable dammit but there needs to be EVIDENCE, credible EVIDENCE of foul play, not just appeal to the paranoia of some for god knows what.
And when the EVIDENCE points to the contrary happening I do really wonder if fanaticism is involved.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, Kepler and your is the lowest form of intellect.
Listen to this. Report from Honduras.
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n...on/
n137581.html
If it is illegal for the people of the country to make changes to their constitution, then that constitution is obviously not worth the paper it is written on is it?
Now that's Chavista logic, yet another illustration of it; and "if I don't like that there is a parking lot in Caracas then I decide to expropriate it myself...and if they oppose I send in the military".
Do I have to remind you of all the horrible injusticies that have been justified by constitutions? All constitutions must be changeable if the people decide that they want to change it in a democratic fashion....Not allowing the nation to even vote on it is indeed very undemocratic....
Just read the Constitution. It can be changed but not just because the president feels like doing so. He will need the parliamentary approval which he did not get.
Sire, your example with Zulia and Bolivia is also total nonsense... Well, these were just consultative "opinion polls", to follow the Chavista Honduran argument; it is "completely undemocratic not to let them voice their opinion on a measure that affects them directly" Double standards!
Also, the Honduran consultation was not innocent, but clearly a move by the incumbent to secure re-election, which is expressly prohibited by the constitution. As he realized that he would not be able to change it according to the rules, he decided to go off-limits and the military reacted.
The problem just is that they messed up; parliament in an extraordinary session should simply have impeached him and then tried him, as simple as that.
Ano, people like you only understand Chavez's kind of humour. When he tells you to laugh, you laugh.
Very probably Zelaya will be back in a couple of days, but Chavez's days are counted. Before 2013 he is out. Where are you going to go then, Ano? Where?
Tosh, how is Chavez's claim that he will overthrow the new Hondurean government any less imperialistic than the US overthrowing governments in the Middle East? Or is there good and bad imperialism?
is it usual to insult other debaters around here (ref. "asshole", anonymous)? what kind of open and civilized debate is this..?
on topic:
why is it so out of place for a failed coupster (vzla's 1992 govt may have been corrupt and whatnot, but still elected) to be the first one to cry blue murder and to man battle stations when the vast majority of hondurean institutions and citizens approve the (constitutional or inconstitutional) removal of zelaya?
why is it so ridiculous for a venezuelan president who disqualifies even slightest and inessential criticism from abroad as imperialistic interference to consider invasion and encouraging potential hondurean insurgents?
imperialism may wear a cap rojo, rojito, too...
and it's nothing uncommon for other countries to condemn the removal of an elected president. the opposite would be outrageous.
political relations between honduras would normalize over time if provisional govt. was to remain in power. at the latest when the upcoming elections are over this will be yesterday's newspaper.
there is a good reason for hondureans today (colombianos recently and venezuelans in 2007) to be so sceptical about any changes to the constitution that allow repeated/continuous presidential terms (something i'd *maybe* understand if there was a 90% support for zelaya throughout all sectors and institutions. smells like home, right?).
latin america has a habitual tendency to caudillismo and societies inclined to develop "Führer"s are supposed get along better without more than one presidential term.
and again, sorry if you've already heard this one before, but how good and sustainable is any political design that depends upon a perpetual leader concentrating power and control in his hands?
Bravo for the coupsters!!
Man, these people are incredible. Honduras has been perhaps the most conservative of all Central American nations, ever since the time Otto Reich was the ambassador over there, and they managed to transform a moderate politician from the center right into a beacon of the revolution.
How funny is that!
Read the declaration by SICA today:
1. Llamar en consulta de forma inmediata a los embajadores de los países del SICA acreditados ante el Gobierno de Honduras.
2. Instruir a los directores de los países del SICA ante el Banco Centroamericano de Integración suspender de forma inmediata todos los préstamos y desembolsos a Honduras.
3. Suspender todo tipo de reuniones de carácter político, económico, financiero, cultural, deportivo, turístico y de cooperación con el Gobierno de facto.
4. Vetar la participación de todo representante que no sea acreditado por el presidente Manuel Zelaya, de Honduras, en las distintas reuniones del SICA.
5. Apoyar plenamente la resolución de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) sobre la situación actual en Honduras del 28 de junio del 2009, para reactivar el restablecimiento del orden constitucional y solicitar una reunión de urgencia del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas para que se emita una resolución condenatoria y adopte las medidas coercitivas que correspondan.
6. Solicitar al presidente de la Asamblea General de la ONU la incorporación de un tema que se denomina: “La situación política de Honduras”, que conlleve a una resolución condenatoria de la Asamblea General.
7. Si no es restablecido el orden constitucional, los países del SICA tomarán escalonadamente las medidas necesarias, incluyendo las relacionadas con el comercio interregional en contra del Gobierno de facto de Honduras, hasta que sea restituido el presidente José Manuel Zelaya en sus funciones presidenciales y se reestablezca la normalidad institucional.
8. Declarar que no se reconocerá ningún Gobierno que surja de esta ruptura constitucional.
9. Mantener contacto permanente, en particular a través del Grupo de Río, para evaluar la evolución de la situación y las medidas que más adelante sea necesario adoptar para lograr el restablecimiento pleno de la normalidad democrática.
Ciudad de Managua, Nicaragua; a los 29 días del mes de junio de 2009.
Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador have already suspended commercial activities and Venezuela already said it won't send any oil hahahaha
(The sweet ironies of life)
Battallions are already starting to turn their backs to the government while the government keeps on sinking in its own shit. Just start noticing the tone of desperation and incredulity that is starting to appear in the articles, editorials and comments in Honduran on-line newspapers. For example in El Heraldo (some sort of Honduran El Nacional) heheheheh
http://www.elheraldo.hn/Edicione...entos-
dificiles
http://www.elheraldo.hn/Especial...iales/Honduras%
"Just read the Constitution. It can be changed but not just because the president feels like doing so. He will need the parliamentary approval which he did not get."
Nobody is stating the constitution should be changed in this case, not even Zelaya, it was just a springboard by asking a simple question, a non-binding simple question the cupulas feared they would get an answer.
"Well, these were just consultative "opinion polls", to follow the Chavista Honduran argument; it is "completely undemocratic not to let them voice their opinion on a measure that affects them directly" Double standards!"
They can very well take place and the government deserves to be told just who and where opposes them every single day, so that they remain honest and not delusional. However a binding poll might need to be universal.
"and again, sorry if you've already heard this one before, but how good and sustainable is any political design that depends upon a perpetual leader concentrating power and control in his hands?"
Not sustainable at all, but neither is a system that keeps toppling the leaders that inch to the left.
What if Bush or Uribe have been overthrown? Would Chavez have condemed the coup?
Oh Flanker...
I just read this today. Might interest you
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../iran-
j29.shtml
Good night to everyone... it's been an interesting day today.
"What if Bush or Uribe have been overthrown? Would Chavez have condemed the coup?"
Do you really need to ask?
Although I could see it in Uribe's case, since the perps would be Santo's ultra bloodthirsty wing.
"I just read this today. Might interest you"
2005....2006....2007
Comeon dude
Flanker. No Chavez would not have complained if the murderer of tens f thusands of Iraqis was wiskes away.
How ungenerous of Chavez, what a brutish nature. Why can't hlHugo be more like daddy Yankee Obama. LOL
Has to be social class blinders, I a pontial inheretance. Something!
Daniel, Miguel, and Quico fully back this coup.
It's sad....simply sad. u
"Flanker. No Chavez would not have complained if the murderer of tens f thusands of Iraqis was wiskes away. "
Hundreds of thousands.
"How ungenerous of Chavez, what a brutish nature. Why can't hlHugo be more like daddy Yankee Obama. LOL"
Why can't Hugo Chavez be logically consistent? All my life I had wanted Washington to stop being hypocritical regarding democracy, I finally see a president that is at least logically consistent and I am supposed to look away from Chavez? either you support all democracy or you don't, support not giving opinions of other countries or you don't. (I personally don't care about this weird nonsense, anyone can opine).
Flanker your naïveté is heartening in the age of Chavez
Hint--look at Obama's love for democracy for Haitian people.
LOL. Maybe they are,well,you know--too poor and black.
Definately a blind spot for you folk that harp on about consistency.
Tell OW that quico and danny need consoling right about now. Or is the man too embarassed to hang with the neolibboyz?
Just asking.
"by asking a simple question"
Yeah, like the preguntita para hacer un cambio chiquito en la constitución sobre si me reeligen.
The guy will be back but that is the beginning of the end.
Look at Argentina!
It is not unreasonable dammit but there needs to be EVIDENCE, credible EVIDENCE of foul play, not just appeal to the paranoia of some for god knows what.
Flanker, we are talking about covert operations here. The whole objective of covert operations is to not leave any solid evidence behind.
However, millions in "aid" to the Honduran military, along with a very close historic relationship with the Honduran right wing is pretty indicative.
Now that's Chavista logic, yet another illustration of it; and "if I don't like that there is a parking lot in Caracas then I decide to expropriate it myself...and if they oppose I send in the military".
??? What argument are you making exactly here Sire? That the people should never be able to change their constitution?
Constitutions are usually changed through a constituyente, which is a relatively democratic process, or a popular vote, not simply one man making all the decisions. If you know of some better way to change constitutions then let us know.
Just read the Constitution. It can be changed but not just because the president feels like doing so. He will need the parliamentary approval which he did not get.
Sire, what purpose does the Congress serve if not to represent the people? So why would the Congress try to block an attempt to consult the people?
Maybe because the Congress is afraid of what the people might want? Is it so hard to see that the Congress is afraid that perhaps the people want something different than what they want?
Why are you defending such a blatantly undemocratic action on the part of the oligarchy-controlled Congress?
Also, the Honduran consultation was not innocent, but clearly a move by the incumbent to secure re-election, which is expressly prohibited by the constitution. As he realized that he would not be able to change it according to the rules, he decided to go off-limits and the military reacted.
Actually, all he wanted was a consulta, which wouldn't have changed anything at all. All it would have done was show everyone that the Congress does not represent the people, and is therefore undemocratic.
Apparently the Congress didn't want the truth to be known.
"Flanker, we are talking about covert operations here. The whole objective of covert operations is to not leave any solid evidence behind."
Well they are not god, make outrageous claims, give outrageous proof.
"However, millions in "aid" to the Honduran military, along with a very close historic relationship with the Honduran right wing is pretty indicative."
More indicative is them telling them they were wrong, and undo what they did.
"Actually, all he wanted was a consulta, which wouldn't have changed anything at all. All it would have done was show everyone that the Congress does not represent the people, and is therefore undemocratic.
Apparently the Congress didn't want the truth to be known."
This is correct and so painfully obvious, they acted out of fear for the people.
for -> of
Tosh, how is Chavez's claim that he will overthrow the new Hondurean government any less imperialistic than the US overthrowing governments in the Middle East?
Pretty simple. Chavez, along with pretty much every other country in the region, wants to reinstate the democratically elected president of Honduras.
The US typically overthrows elected leaders (often through bombings, invasions, etc.) in order to replace them with puppet regimes.
Is this that hard to understand or are you really just that stupid Impartial?
Well they are not god, make outrageous claims, give outrageous proof.
So, in other words, unless you can provide outright irrefutable proof of something then there is no sense in discussing it?
Okay, tell that to the Iranian protesters.
More indicative is them telling them they were wrong, and undo what they did.
So, you actually believe what US officials SAY more than what they DO?
Are you serious?
This is correct and so painfully obvious, they acted out of fear for the people.
Flanker | 06.30.09 - 3:01 pm | #
Obvious to anyone with a brain, but apparently our Venezuelan oppo friends are a little lacking in that department.
Well they are not god, make outrageous claims, give outrageous proof.
Also Flanker, with this logic then we could never ever discuss covert operations because we almost never have irrefutable evidence to prove it.
Many times it comes down to the testimony of former CIA agents many decades later that reveal the truth, but even then it could be argued that these former agents are not telling the truth, have personal motives, or are delerious, etc. etc.
However, millions in "aid" to the Honduran military, along with a very close historic relationship with the Honduran right wing is pretty indicative.
You could make the same argument with all the "aid" Chavez provides Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc... and his relationship with the leaders of each one of these countries...
But then again.. when its the US you are against foreign interference.. when Chavez is the one interfering, you are in support.
Hm.. I sense a lack of objectivity here.
You could make the same argument with all the "aid" Chavez provides Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc... and his relationship with the leaders of each one of these countries...
You could, but you'd look like a real idiot for a few important reasons.
Chavez deals with the elected governments of these countries, not their militaries or opposition leaders. He doesn't send millions of dollars in aid, but rather very modest joint investments and economic agreements with their ELECTED governments. (If you have proof that Chavez has sent anywhere NEAR the amount of money to Honduras as the US has, then show it.) And, perhaps most importantly, Chavez doesn't have a long history of overthrowing governments, propping up dictators, invasions, covert activity, etc. that would make anyone with a brain think that there is any point in making the comparison.
But then again.. when its the US you are against foreign interference.. when Chavez is the one interfering, you are in support.
Tank, he wants to reinstate the democratically elected leader. Practically every other government in the whole region agrees with him on this.
You are just digging yourself in a hole here and revealing how the Venezuelan opposition still supports illegal coups to this day, despite all their claims to the contrary.
Hm.. I sense a lack of objectivity here.
ElTank | 06.30.09 - 4:44 pm | #
Indeed. Comparing Chavez to the US's long history of intervention in Latin America certainly not only takes a lack of objectivity (irrational hatred for Chavez) but also a lack of brains.
Well with a vote of 198 - 1 in the UN against the coup in Honduras I would guess that this is pretty conclusive what the whole world wants except for a few loonies who hate Chavez (It IS Zelaya who was removed, not Chavez, so don't get overexcited).
Some of the assertions being amde here about Zelaya and his intentions and the "crimes" he committed are just plain wrong. If any of you are interested in knowing what the facts are, just take time to read this article by Toni Solo who lives next door to Honduras in Nicaragua.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/
pu...cle_56177.shtml
You can comment on this as well n the site.
Also this article is accurate but says things the oppo chulos do not want to read:
http://incakolanews.blogspot.com...eeded-
that.html
The OAS demanding democracy in Honduras is the same one that not too long ago accepted Cuba back into the fold? Please confirm, I'm sure I am getting this wrong.
also.. did I hear HRW?
Is that the same Human Rights Watch that was kicked out of Venezuela?
I saw a guy trashing the Honduran coupsters. Wasn't he the same guy who in 1992 tried to overthrow an elected government? Please clarify, I must getting this wrong.
I saw a guy trashing the Honduran coupsters. Wasn't he the same guy who in 1992 tried to overthrow an elected government? Please clarify, I must getting this wrong.
Impartial | 06.30.09 - 11:31 pm | #
And the Venezuelan opposition continues to demonstrate how their irrational hatred for Chavez does not allow them to take a serious position on anything.
Whatever position Chavez takes, they take the opposite position.
Chavez tried to overthrow a government that had turned the army on its own people, killing hundreds, and then dumped them in hidden mass graves.
Impartial, however, is having difficulty understanding what the difference is. Can someone please hold his hand and explain to him the basics?
I think, anon etc forget about the decree, Zelaya issued on Saturday before he got ousted, wich ordered public institutions to work on the 4th urn thing. That decree was against the law and the prosecuter already told Zelaya this and warned the people supporting Zelaya, that everyone helping will be prosecuting for that crime.
If Zelaya wanted to rewrite the constitution, he also had the chance to go the legal way, means : get the fucking majority in the congress (2/3rd) and then he can make changes.
To quote Tosh : If the purpose of the Congress it to represent the people, then why would they oppose consulting the very people that they supposedly represent?
That they did obviously, they represented the people and not backed the president on his dreams of neverending world.. erm.. Honduras domination.
Being elected by the people doesn't automatically mean to support all president decisions/ideas. A president can be elected with 30% of the votes possible (Chavez often gets even less), means, that being a president doesn't mean, that the majority of the people want you there (same happened with Angela Merkel in Germany)
Hey, leftopaths, it all comes down to two articles on the Honduran constitution (yes, the one Zelaya wants to use to wipe his ass), 239 and 42. Look it up.
Nur_Ich aka Kepler. You have not read the articles linked above, that's why your comment is a complete pile of garbage.
To repeat Tosh - you can't kidnap a president and fly him out of a country against his will when there are legal mechanisms to deal with this.
Commonly it is known as a COUP D'ËTAT which is illegal.
How can you idiots support an act which is illegal any which way you look at it? However, if you are disociated you don't know it. It's like and alcoholic who always justifies why he has to drink.
Tosh
According to you the army should have stayed put during el Caracazo and let people loot at will for days.
You are everyday more of an asshole: a coup is a coup. Defending Chavez coup undermines anything you say about the Honduras coup. We have observed for so long your contradictions, intolerance and retard ideology that we should not be surprised that you sponsor violence when it is convenient for you.
Berenice - just think about the first part of what you wrote.
The army should be used in situations of civil conflict or looting to restore order - not to kill 3000 unarmed citizens and arbittrarily machine gun apartments in El Valle. The bullet holes are still there as a reminder.
Ridiculous remarka without thinking things through.
According to you the army should have stayed put during el Caracazo and let people loot at will for days.
hahahaha!!! You're right Berenice, the only option was to send the army into the streets to shoot people, and then put them in trash bags and dump them in mass graves.
You know, that's how all governments deal with riots, right?
Are you fucking stupid?
You are everyday more of an asshole: a coup is a coup. Defending Chavez coup undermines anything you say about the Honduras coup. We have observed for so long your contradictions, intolerance and retard ideology that we should not be surprised that you sponsor violence when it is convenient for you.
Berenice | Homepage | 07.01.09 - 10:10 am | #
When a government has turned its armed forces on its own people to massacre them, that government has lost all legitimacy.
That is drastically different than a government that simply wants to hold a public poll to consult the people about changing the constitution.
Again, are you really so stupid that you can't understand what the difference is?
Tosh - I fully back your comment on the idiotic remarks made by Berenice.
Yes, Terán. You are also full of it. In 2006 the very same Congress which assigned Micheletti to the presidency passed a law of "Participación Ciudadana", designed for such consulative referendums - ie not binding.
The fourth ballot box was designed for use within the context of this law and Congress stopped it for being "illegal".
This is ahuge contradiction but since Congress wanted to oust Zelaya in any which way, they tamely accepted his "rersignation" which he never made.
Hence a coup, is a coup is a coup.
Have you guys noticed that the only ones supporting the coup are the escualidos of the world? Some of the regulars here, the idiotized audience of globovision, the Major of Santa Cruz in Bolivia, Ledezma, Teodoro, the right wingers here and there, Unoamerica, Grupo Prisa, etc...
For example, take a look at that Mario Teran guy, he invokes the articles 42 and 239 of the Honduran constitution, and he fails to mention that the coupsters have effectively wiped their asses with it by disrespecting articles 2, 3, 5, 42, 45, 59, 60, 61, 66, 68, 69, 70. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 272, 274, 277 and 278.
Double-thought, double-thought, double-thought...
According to Elheraldo.hn the only two embassies that have recognized the new government are the Taiwanese and the Israeli. It could be a rumour though, if true, wouldn't be too surprising since both States have a long history of meddling with left wing in Latin America and beyond.
"3000 unarmed citizens and arbittrarily machine gun apartments in El Valle. The bullet holes are still there as a reminder."
Ano,
Can you point at the list of those 3000 citizens? I suppose that Chavez must have ordered a commission to find out who those 3000 were. I mean: even the US has a list of the 3000 that were murdered on September 2001.
Can you please tell me where the list of those 3000 is?
Also: why hasn't this government put anyone in prison for those crimes? Carlos Andrés Pérez was not the only responsible nor the couple of oppo guys you like to quote. There were lots of military involved.
Ah, but please, give me the list of those 3000.
Or was it not 30000? Or 300000? Or 3000000? Or 30000000000?
No Kepler, no one was killed and the Caracazo never happened. No government of Human Rights Organization ever condemned the massacre since it never happened.
The true number will never ne known since as Tosh pointed out, theose murdered were put into plastic bags and dumped into mass graves.
Hay un número impresionante de muertos, calculado según las fuentes, entre 300 y 5.000 muertos
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
Even the official figure of 276 dead is still genocide.
Read about impunity and the Caracazo, Kepler
http://aquevedo.wordpress.com/20...s-responsables/
Social fact happens against will of rulers.All revolutions in mankind is a rupture of paradigma
existent in societies.L.America is nos a exception.In 1790 in France french revolutionares are terrorists to ruling classs.In fact.Wealthy people a minority has much to loose with social reforms.The easy way to oposse them is call the military to interrupt formal democratic governments elected .
The Honduras issue is a clasic film viewed in recent and old times.
Many people think that is normal fact that high
military offices make ordinary politic when all world constitutions forbid.
But a few ultra conservatives politics groups dont said a word when a right wing military intervention is made.
The reason why people as Chavez or Morales are democratic elected is poverty ans social discontent.Poor people dont understand much of free press or TV chain election because they dont have money to buy a newspaper.Less to watch tv.His high concern is survival.
The principal responsabilities of this situation are
some latinoamerican bad called elites who think that is a natural condition poverty and only remember constitutional rules when isd menaced
his privileges.
Have you guys noticed that the only ones supporting the coup are the escualidos of the world? Some of the regulars here, the idiotized audience of globovision, the Major of Santa Cruz in Bolivia, Ledezma, Teodoro, the right wingers here and there, Unoamerica, Grupo Prisa, etc...
Exactly Domingo. These oppo guys hate to be called "golpista", but they support coups. What do you call a person that supports illegal coups?
Golpistas. If the shoe fits....
Yes, Terán. You are also full of it. In 2006 the very same Congress which assigned Micheletti to the presidency passed a law of "Participación Ciudadana", designed for such consulative referendums - ie not binding.
The fourth ballot box was designed for use within the context of this law and Congress stopped it for being "illegal".
This is ahuge contradiction but since Congress wanted to oust Zelaya in any which way, they tamely accepted his "rersignation" which he never made.
Hence a coup, is a coup is a coup.
Anonymous | 07.01.09 - 2:37 pm |
Bullshit. Article 4 of the law you quote clearly says that any plebiscite or referendum will take place according to what the Constitution says. The Justice System, which is the body that enforces the Constitution, said this fourth ballot box was illegal. Hence, you have no case.
Do you have any other branch on which you wanna hang yourself on?
How further down are these guys willing to go? (It would be funny if it weren't so sad)
The guys suspended freedom of association, assembly, transit, due process and from search, seizure and invasion of one's home... articles 69, 71, 78, 88 and 91.
wait... I think I'm starting to get Mario Teran's position in all of this: Zelaya shouldn't have violated any articles from the constitution... without suspending them first.
How ignorant of him.
Tosh,
You refer to "illegal coups" as opposed to what?
You refer to "illegal coups" as opposed to what?
Impartial | 07.01.09 - 10:37 pm | #
All coups are illegal in the literal sense, but that does not mean that all coups are the same (obviously).
You see, historical details matter. A coup against a murderous government that has massacred its own population is significantly different than a coup against a government that simply calls for a non-binding referendum.
I can't believe I even have to explain this. But, then again, you ARE an oppo-moron aren't you?
IN fact, if you want to get technical, political scientists actually classify coups in different categories. Some scholars refer to what is known as the "Colonel's coup" which is usually when lower-level members of the armed forces overthrow a repressive or oligarchical regime (Chavez 1992 is a perfect example). The other kind of coup is known as the "General's coup" which is when higher level military men overthrow a government in order to impede popular reforms or radical changes. (Chile 1973, Venezuela 2002, Honduras 2009)
Other scholars have classified coups in a similar fashion but use different terminology such as "Breakthrough coups", and "Veto" coups, but the idea is still the same.
In other words, all coups are not considered the same by political scientists. But I wouldn't expect that to matter to the oppo-morons who will flail in the wind with any argument they can pull out of their ass.
Now, is there anything else you'd like to know about coups Impartial, or maybe you should just drag yourself over to one of your retarded oppo blogs where your constant nonsense won't get so readily destroyed by real argumentation.
How further down are these guys willing to go? (It would be funny if it weren't so sad)
It is sad, yet funny to watch these idiots flail around with these weak, pathetic arguments. In the end, they show their true colors.
Dear son of a rich daddy, Tosh Junior,
It makes me laugh how you pretend to be a political scientist. You have nothing of science at all in you, not political, not social, nothing.
"You see, historical details matter. A coup against a murderous government that has massacred its own population is significantly different than a coup against a government that simply calls for a non-binding referendum."
Carlos Andrés Pérez was not staying forever. He was anyway going to go out in 1994 and the shootings, mostly carried out by Chavez's friends, took place in 1989.
Chavez has done nothing about prosecution.
Ah, and please, tell me finally the list of murdered people. Was it 300 or 3000? I know, one is already too much, but you would become more credibly if, after almost 20 years, you could get a credible list.
"Other scholars"
Scholars? Geez...please, don't come to us portraying yourself as an intellectual quoting peers.
You are not a political scientist (no matter your dad spent so much money to procure a degree for you in North America), you are not a scholar and you are not an intellectual.
wait... I think I'm starting to get Mario Teran's position in all of this: Zelaya shouldn't have violated any articles from the constitution... without suspending them first.
How ignorant of him.
Domingo | Homepage | 07.01.09 - 10:13 pm |
Is that the best you can come up with? Would yoi mind replying to the comment I made about the Ley de Participación Ciudadana?
Ano,
I am not saying it did not happen. Of course it happen and a lot of the Chavez friends are responsible for those murders (not just Carlos Andrés Pérez and Pena)
When you are reporting 3000 or 280 murders, numbers mean something.
It shows how manipulative you can be if you just brandish those numbers: 3000. Why did you not take 280? 300? If there were 3000: how come the Chavista government has not documented the case? I mean: how illiterate can they be?
Can't they don anything right but drink whiskey and drive SUVs?
Where is the report?
Meanwhile:
Citgo Imports Oil from Countries Other Than Venezuela
The U.S. affiliate of Pdvsa imported 200,000 barrels daily of crude and other derivatives from Algeria, Russia, Brazil and Ecuador
The U.S. Department of Energy reported that at the close of the first quarter of 2009, a third of the volume of oil received by Citgo, the U.S. affiliate of Petróleos de Venezuela (Pdva), came from different crude producing countries other than Venezuela. On average, Citgo's imports were 605,166 barrels daily between crude, distillates and fuels; and of that quantity, 200,000 barrels daily were bought from businesses from member nations of OPEP, such as Algeria, and nations that do not belong to that organization, such as Brazil and Ecuador. The amount of purchases coincides with the drop in Pdvsa exports to the U.S. registered this month, which decreased 19.4%, moving from 1.1 million to 891,000 barrels daily. In three months, Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. have fallen 34.1%, daily El Nacional reported.
Also:
Hondurans in Choluteca take to the streets in support of their government.
http://tinyurl.com/ndvta4
http://tinyurl.com/kj3ek2
wtf are you talking about Kepler? The Caracazo was in 1989. Chávez and Peña were not even on the scene then. You know fuck all about Venezuelan contemporary history.
The people who are being accused even nowadays are CAP and Ovidio Poggioli who was in charge of the FAN at that time.
Obviously the official figure was manipulated even 20 years ago. there were not enough coffins even for the people who were not thrown into mass graves. Think about it.
The estimates vary up to 5000 according to all sources you read.
Chavez had nothing to do with "manipulations" of this massacre so just grow up.
jsb - it's typical of ignorant scum like you to support a coup as you always have done with the 2002 coup here.
Ano,
They have been able to find the skeletons of Sebrenica. How come they haven't found so many in Venezuela?
Of course Chavez was not president. He was a military and he had a lot of insider information.
Hey anonymous, let'em support the coup.
What difference does it make to argue with people who doesn't have a sense of the ridicule? I realized long ago that the overwhelming majority of Venezuela's opposition and its accolites elsewhere don't really stand for democracy and neither do they really care about Venezuela's well-being.
That's why they cannot come clean of their responsabilities destabilizing Chavez's administration. That's why they cannot admit the grave consequences that the lockdown and the sabotage caused to our economy. That's why they so vehemently support the status quo.
I said it many times before: You chose your side and we chose ours. Time will tell which one will prevail.
I do appreciate though the irrationality of the Honduran opposition, and any other that helps our cause: You can tell the guys are really feeling the tension when they suspend civilian liberties, and when the good-for-nothing Honduran Human Rights National Commisioner Ramón Custodio López proposes a referendum to if the people want Zelaya back or not... hehehe... they now are even admiting the possibility of Zelaya to return to power.
But the funniest thing of all is that it would be a referendum less than 180 days before the elections... so much for the respect of the Constitution and the laws. Oh man, Mario Terán, these Honduran coupsters are so intent on undermining your arguments.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
If I had a dollar for every time I read the same rethorical crap, I'd be living in Monaco by now.
I see that you, Domingo, or the glorious Anonymous have not tried to reply about the Ley de Participación Ciudadana.
But you're right in one thing, "you chose your side and we chose ours. Time will tell which one will prevail." You and the rest of the leftopaths here have chosen the side of the iranian midget, Castro, Al-Bashir and any other 'democratic' icon Chavez decides to support. Indeed, time will tell who's side is the right one.
I see that you, Domingo, or the glorious Anonymous have not tried to reply about the Ley de Participación Ciudadana.
Apparently you're too stupid to understand the argument. Let me put it very nice and simple for you.
Regardless of whether or not Zelaya's non-binding referendum was legal or constitutional, that does NOT justify trampling all over the constitution to overthrow him.
This is so obvious to anyone with a brain that it seems ridiculous that we even have to explain this to you.
"he iranian midget, Castro, Al-Bashir and any other 'democratic' icon Chavez decides to support. Indeed, time will tell who's side is the right one."
A lot of the left even supported Milosevic. History is littered with their support for tyrants.
Regardless of whether or not Zelaya's non-binding referendum was legal or constitutional, that does NOT justify trampling all over the constitution to overthrow him.
This is so obvious to anyone with a brain that it seems ridiculous that we even have to explain this to you.
Tosh | 07.02.09 - 11:49 am | #
Carlson, your brain is so messed up that probably you don't realize what you just wrote. You just admitted that Zelaya's actions were way past the Honduran law. That's why the body in charge of enforcing the constitution (i.e. the Justice System) said it was illegal. He accepted the meddling of a foreign country, Venezuela, on Honduran electoral matters, which is also illegal. The same justice system, following the constitution (article 42, sections 3 and 5), sent the military to kick his chavista ass out of the presidency.
Your wish that everybody follows the chavista way of doing things regardless of the laws no vale mierda.
"Regardless of whether or not Zelaya's non-binding referendum was legal or constitutional, that does NOT justify trampling all over the constitution to overthrow him."
I think the one who has a comprenhension problem is you, Tosh.
Wheather the referendun was binding or not is besides the point. He was told NO by all the LEGAL INSTITUTIONS but he would not take NO for an answer. Moreover, he had a FOREIGN government (VENEZUELA) flew in ballots. Just for that He should have been deposed by any means necessary.
Wheather the referendun was binding or not is besides the point. He was told NO by all the LEGAL INSTITUTIONS but he would not take NO for an answer. Moreover, he had a FOREIGN government (VENEZUELA) flew in ballots.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 12:36 pm | #
And this justifies a coup how?
Amazing how you guys just can't seem to get this one.
Even if a president does something illegal, this does not mean the military then gets to overthrow him and put someone else in his place. This is FAR more unconstitutional than anything Zelaya did.
It really is amazing that I have to even explain such simple concepts.
I just read this today. Might interest you"
2005....2006....2007
Comeon dude
Flanker | 06.29.09 - 9:31 pm | #
The US administration has responded to Iranian allegations of manipulating opposition protests inside the country with flat denials. President Obama declared last week that the United States respected Iran’s sovereignty “and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs”.
The American and international media, which has mounted a strident campaign in support of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, has similarly dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the US and its European allies had a hand in the events since the presidential poll on June 12. Just as the press never examines the claims of Mousavi and his supporters that the election was rigged, so it ignores the considerable evidence of extensive US operations against Iran, spanning a range of diplomatic, intelligence and military activities.
USA Today last week noted that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was handing out $20 million in grants this financial year to unnamed organisations “to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran”. For next year, the Obama administration is seeking another $15 million via the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims.
Asked whether such grants constituted interference, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor disingenuously declared: “Let’s be clear. The United States does not fund any movement, faction or political party in Iran. We support... universal principles of human rights, free speech, and the rule of law.” In reality, the funding is the continuation of the Bush administration’s efforts to establish ties with opposition groups in Iran and undermine the government.
One of the funnels for funding is the state-funded National Endowment for Democracy, which has been intimately involved in “colour revolutions” in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. The NED website lists a number of Iranian organisations including the National Iranian American Council as recipients of its funds.
Just for that He should have been deposed by any means necessary.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 12:36 pm | #
Hahahaha, this argument is hilarious.
Allow me to paraphrase your argument:
"Zelaya disrespected the constitution, therefore the constitution should be trampled over and disrespected by the military."
This is amazing logic. Are all you oppo guys this stupid?
He accepted the meddling of a foreign country, Venezuela, on Honduran electoral matters, which is also illegal. The same justice system, following the constitution (article 42, sections 3 and 5), sent the military to kick his chavista ass out of the presidency.
Hahahaha, please show me the part in the constitution that says that when the President fails to abide by the consititution that the military then must go kidnap him at his house and throw him out of the country.
Keep them coming Mario!! These intelligent comments of yours are really hilarious!!!
Tosh,
So your objection is that he was flown out of the country. The only way to stop that guy from conducting an ilegal referendum with foreing ballots flown in from Venezuela, would have been to arrest him and throw him in jail. Wouldn't they need a interim president, then?
I buy the bit about it was wrong to fly him out of the country but he defenitely needed to be arrested and in jail.
So your objection is that he was flown out of the country. The only way to stop that guy from conducting an ilegal referendum with foreing ballots flown in from Venezuela, would have been to arrest him and throw him in jail. Wouldn't they need a interim president, then?
No, apparently you don't understand how this works Anon.
Its a thing called due process, where they have a thing called a trial. Its all spelled out in the constitution, but, oh well. Why follow the consitution when you can just have an illegal coup, right?
Even Zapatero agrees that it is a waste of time to discuss this with these oppo morons:
"Podemos discutir la gestión de Zelaya pero lo que es indiscutible es que a un presidente no se le puede secuestrar por unos militares y sacarle del país", subrayó Zapatero durante una entrevista en RNE recogida por Europa Press. Tras enfatizar que "esto es indiscutible", el jefe del Ejecutivo advirtió de que "quebrar este principio" puede "abrir la puerta" a los golpes militares en Latinoamérica, "algo que esperábamos ya olvidado" después de 20 años.
But I suppose Zapatero is also just some "messed up" whacko lefty that doesn't understand things as well as these oppo geniuses, right?
Tosh,
Well, is refreshing to know that you admit that Zelaya violated his own constitution.
How do you propose how Zelaya should have been stopped from distributing and receiving ballots from a foreing country and conducting an ilegal referendum? House arrest? Woud they not need an interim president, then?
Well, is refreshing to know that you admit that Zelaya violated his own constitution.
How do you propose how Zelaya should have been stopped from distributing and receiving ballots from a foreing country and conducting an ilegal referendum? House arrest? Woud they not need an interim president, then?
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 1:40 pm | #
I guess I'm really going to have to spell it out in elementary terms that Anon can understand.
You see Anon, with this whole due process thing you can't just put someone in jail until they have had a fair trial and have been convicted of a crime. I know that seems strange to a golpista, but that's how most democracies function.
Since Zelaya hadn't even held the referendum yet, it certainly would have been hard to convict him of violating the constitution now wouldn't it?
The constitution spells out exactly what must happen in the event the president is removed from office through legal means. But you've clearly shown that you have no regard for what the constitution says.
Tosh,
I think you do not want to understand the question. How were they supposed to stop the distribution of ballots to conduct an ilegal referendum? He was told NO but continued to go ahead with it.
If you can answer that question, I would be satisfied and drop the subject.
Carlson, read the fucking constitution antes de hablar huevonadas.
Well, is refreshing to know that you admit that Zelaya violated his own constitution.
No, again you fail to understand my argument.
What I am saying is that it is IRRELEVANT whether or not Zelaya violated the constitution. Either way it does not justify an illegal coup to overthrow the president.
Carlson, read the fucking constitution antes de hablar huevonadas.
Mario Terán | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 1:58 pm | #
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot show me the part of the constitution which allows for the kidnapping and forceful removal of the president.
I wonder if you can even show me the part of the constitution that says what Zelaya did was illegal?
On another note, I'm not sure what a "huevonada" is. I think you meant to say GUEVONADA? You're a genius.
"In defiance of court orders, Zelaya persisted. Surrounded by a friendly mob, he broke into the military installations where the ballots were kept and oered them distributed. The courts declared that Zelaya had placed himself outside the law, and Congress began an impeachment procedure. "
A guy who sorrounds himself with a mob, breaks into military installations where the ballots were kept, is going to wait quitely and peacefully for his impeachment? Right.
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.
Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.
Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office.
The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.
It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
thor...en07012009.html
Tosh,
"ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
1. Por prestar servicios en tiempo de guerra a enemigos de Honduras o de sus aliados;
2. Por prestar ayuda en contra del Estado de Honduras, a un extranjero o a un gobierno extranjero en cualquier reclamación diplomática o ante un tribunal internacional;
3. Por desempeñar en el país, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter político;
4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,
6. Por residir los hondureños naturalizados, por más de dos años consecutivos, en el extranjero sin previa autorización del Poder Ejecutivo."
Pay attention to #5. Unless the president is not considered a citizen, I do not how he can get around it.
More:
"TITULO VII: DE LA REFORMA Y LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCION
CAPITULO I
DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCION
ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente."
Pay attention to #5. Unless the president is not considered a citizen, I do not how he can get around it.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 2:11 pm | #
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Apparently you don't even know what the whole referendum was all about?
He wasn't proposing reelection. He was proposing a constituyente to rewrite the constitution.
Perhaps you should get a little informed before supporting coups?
Tosh - incidentally - the golpistas said a couple of days ago that they had asked Interpol to detain Zelaya with an international arrest order.About an hour ago the Venezuelan Justice Minister stated on VTV that there was NO international arrest warrant in Interpol for Zelaya.
This proves that these coupsters are not just fascists but liars as well.
No charges have ever been filed against Zelaya in the Attorney General's Office either sdo wtf are these people talking about.
It's easy to say for media reasons that Zelaya has "committed many crimes". Now, where are the charges? there aren't any.
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente."
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 2:14 pm | #
Again, you fail to understand what he was proposing.
He wasn't proposing a reform to the existing constitution. He was proposing a constituyente to write a new consitution, which is perfectly legal.
Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it.
No matter. It does not make any difference what Zelaya did or did not do . removing him by force into exile is illagal by any standards and all the international organizations recognize this.
Today the EU recalled all their ambassadors from Honduras. More isolation. More desperation. Nearer the end.
Tosh - exactly and this fits in with the 2006 Law guaranteeing Citizen Participation passed by the same Congress now limiting the public's human rights.
Tosh,
Did the Honduras Congress not pass a law saying that he could not do it 6 months before the elections? He disobeyed that one, too.
Ignored the law and proceeded to break into military installations to get the ballots to call for the constituyente or whatever. A president is not above the law or the constitution.
Did the Honduras Congress not pass a law saying that he could not do it 6 months before the elections? He disobeyed that one, too.
No, they passed a law that said you could not carry out a referendum 6 months before the election.
Since it was not going to be a referendum, but rather a NON-BINDING POLL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A REFERENDUM on election day in November, it was not illegal.
Pero opositores a Zelaya en el Congreso hondureño aprobaron el martes por la noche la llamada Ley Especial que Regula el Referéndum y el Plebiscito, que prohíbe la aplicación de las figuras 180 días antes y después de elecciones generales.
Los hondureños irán a las urnas el 29 de noviembre para elegir un nuevo presidente, diputados y alcaldes.
"Ahora, si el presidente quiere que se convoque a una consulta, lo puede hacer con las figuras del plebiscito y el referéndum aprobada, pero no podrá lograr que se apruebe la reelección", dijo a Reuters el vicepresidente del Congreso Nacional, Ramón Velásquez.
En la consulta del domingo se preguntaría a los hondureños si están de acuerdo con que en las elecciones generales de noviembre se instale una urna para convocar a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, que apruebe una nueva Constitución.
El mandatario no ha dicho abiertamente que quiera su reelección, pero analistas creen que esa es la intención de la eventual reforma.
El secretario privado de la presidencia, Eduardo Reina, dijo a Reuters que la legislación aprobada el martes en el Congreso "es limitada e insuficiente y que el gobierno celebrará siempre la encuesta popular".
If anything was unconstitutional, it was the Supreme Court's decision that the non-binding poll was illegal. It does not say anything in the constitution about this. It doesn't even prohibit referendum. A 2006 law clearly allows for referendum to be called.
Likewise, the constitution does not prohibit calling for an asamblea constituyente, so they have no right to block this, and their decision to do so is unconstitutional.
Tosh,
You obviously has a reading comprenhension problem. Re-read the articles of the Honduras Constitution posted above. Maybe, I should post them in English.
"ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia."
He proposed and the Congress said NO!
Moreover, he was told that he could not conduct binding or non-binding poll 6 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTIONS.
Again, he ignored them.
So, he ignored them. Let's assume that the institutions were correct to prohiibit any of these polls, just for one moment.
Is thjis justification to overthrow the president and expell him. No. UN and all the major international institutions know that this is a vulgar coup. Period.
AnonIII
Zelaya did not propose to reform any articles but to go to a Constituent ASSEMBLY. Thjis is completely different than reforming individual articles and does not go against the Article 373 you quote.
Well, answer that!
No, he should not have been expelled from the country but defenitely arrested and thrown in jail to wait for his impeachment. Meanwhile, they have to have an interim president, don't they?
"Zelaya did not propose to reform any articles but to go to a Constituent ASSEMBLY. Thjis is completely different than reforming individual articles and does not go against the Article 373 you quote.
Well, answer that!"
And he was told NO, not 6 months before elections.
He should have thought of asking a year ago.
No, he should not have been expelled from the country but defenitely arrested and thrown in jail to wait for his impeachment. Meanwhile, they have to have an interim president, don't they?
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 2:57 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
No arrest order was issued so this is a coup and Micheletti is a de facto president not an interim president. Ask the UN, AnonIII
In addition. Zelaya could ahve been accused and judged in liberty. Why did he have to be thrown in jail on what was a technicality according to the Supreme Court.
OT - if the de facto powers now operate in Honduras think that the mnarch of the poor majority will be halted, they are very, very wrong. In my view, this one will turn into a violent, armed revolution. Goodbye oligarchs.
"ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional,
He wasnt' proposing a reform. He was proposing a constituyente. They are two very different things.
Moreover, he was told that he could not conduct binding or non-binding poll 6 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTIONS.
Nope, the law only applies to referendum, which are by nature binding. It doesn't say anything about non-binding.
And the supreme court decision to declare the non-binding poll illegal was unconstitutional, since their decision was based on articles of the constitution that prohibit reforms to the constitution. Zelaya wasn't proposing any reforms to the constitution, and his poll was non-binding anyway, which means it would not produce any changes.
No, he should not have been expelled from the country but defenitely arrested and thrown in jail to wait for his impeachment.
They couldn't do this because they have no case against him, and they know that. That's why they resorted to the illegal coup that has been rejected by the whole world except for you and the rest of the Venezuelan oppo morons.
Article 42, section 3, Carlson.
Yes, he claimed it was non binding HOURS before it was supposed to be held.
Article 42, section 3, Carlson.
Mario Terán | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 3:48 pm | #
Article 42, Section 3 says the following:
3. Por desempeñar en el país, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter político;
Please provide evidence that Zelaya was doing this. Otherwise, stop making weak excuses in support of what is widely recognized as an illegal coup. You're only making yourself look that much more ridiculous than you already have.
Yes, he claimed it was non binding HOURS before it was supposed to be held.
revbob22 | 07.02.09 - 3:57 pm | #
This is obviously false since they were referring to it as a "encuesta popular" all last week. Try again.
Did you guys want to make up any more lies to try to justify your support for coups?
As for the Venezuelan coup, the opposition version of the story has been totally dismantled right here:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/...m/analysis/
4580
Just more opposition lies being debunked.
Tosh and anonymous
Your replies, as demonstrated by other comments, are more stupid than what you claim my comment was.
At any rate I prefer to be "stupid" than the fascist bigoted violent white trash that you are.
Your replies, as demonstrated by other comments, are more stupid than what you claim my comment was.
At any rate I prefer to be "stupid" than the fascist bigoted violent white trash that you are.
berenice | Homepage | 07.02.09 - 5:33 pm | #
These kinds of ad-hominem responses are indicative of a realization that your argument has been totally defeated, and that you have no other possible response.
"3. Por desempeñar en el país, sin licencia del Congreso Nacional, empleo de nación extranjera, del ramo militar o de carácter político;
Please provide evidence that Zelaya was doing this. Otherwise, stop making weak excuses in support of what is widely recognized as an illegal coup. You're only making yourself look that much more ridiculous than you already have."
How about the ballots flown in from Venezuela( a foreing nation)? Is that of character politico or not?
Yes, Berenice you have zero arguments exactly as La Bicha on RCTV.
To be quite honest I was disappointed on April 14th 2002 when the white scum which organized the coup against Chavez were not rounded up and slung in jail. Especially the reporters and media owners who fanned the flames.
AnonIII - so what if the ballots were flown in? Does it matter? I sippose it does if your head is full of conspiracy theoroies about Chávez and him wanting to take over America.
I guess you could argue that joining Petrocaribe was illeagal in the case of Honduras, but there you go.
I doubt that using ballots printed in Venezuela and packed by filthly chavistas who worship Fidel Castro is a crime.
You ridiulous, pathetic moron, AnonIII.
Turn on Telesur and see the democratic forces of the "new Honduras" beating the living shit out of peaceful protesters supporting Zelaya.. Way to go.
Look at this headline from Globo's web page:
Ledezma y empleados de Alcaldía Mayor exigirán a la OEA el mismo apoyo prestado a Zelaya
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
It's fucking unbleleveable!!!!!!!!!!!
At least Ledezma is still Metro Mayor. This guy in San Pedro Sula is not so lucky thanks to the democratic respect shown by the de facto government in Honduras:
Dictador hondureño Goriletti destituye Alcalde y nombra en su lugar a su sobrino
Por: Aporrea.org
Fecha de publicación: 02/07/09
imprímelo mándaselo a
tus panas
Honduras 2 de julio de 2009.- Activistas sociales en la ciudad de San Pedro Sula, que se encuentran en las calles demandando el retorno del Presidente Zelaya, denunciaron a través de Telesur un doble golpe de estado con la destitución de su Alcalde Rodolfo Farías, quien fué depuesto ilegalmente y sustituído por William Franklin Micheletti, sobrino del dictador.
Farías se había destacado por defender la constitucionalidad y exigir el retorno del Presidente Zelaya. Su paradero es desconocido. Mientras tanto la represión sigue aumentando y se teme que en la próximas horas se produzcan mas detenciones. Los manifestantes hicieron un dramático llamado a los pueblos del mundo a no dejarlos solos.
Still supporting the coup Oppos?
"COMUNICADO OFICIAL DE LA CORTE SUPEREMA DE JUSTICIA
Que el Juzgado de Letras de lo contencioso administrativo, ante una solicitud del Ministerio Publico, el día viernes 2ó de junio del corriente año libró orden a las Fuerzas Armadas para que ante la Desobediencia del Poder Ejecutivo, de suspender toda actividad relacionada con una consulta ó encuesta que se llevaría a cabo el día de hoy; procediera al decomiso de todo el material de la encuesta que se utilizaría en esa actividad previamente declarada ilegal.
Esta determinación jurídica autorizo a las Fuerzas Armadas para que con la intervención de fiscales del Ministerio Publico se procediera a requisar el material en mención, lo cual se ha estado ejecutando desde las ocho de la mañana de este día, acudiéndose para tal fin a todos los centros destinados para efectuar la referida encuesta, Siendo el decomiso la ejecución de una actuación judicial firme ratificado por la Corte de lo Contencioso Administrativo en donde se declara ilegal la encuesta patrocinada por el Ejecutivo, quien en ningún momento atendió los mandatos emanados de la Constitución y la Ley, el Poder Judicial considera que tal actuación se realiza dentro del marco legal, en base a una disposición judicial emitida por el juez competente.
Por su parte el Poder Judicial también estima que en el caso que se conoce, las Fuerzas Armadas como defensores del imperio de la Constitución, ha actuado en defensa del Estado de Derecho obligando a cumplir las disposiciones legales, a quienes públicamente han manifestado y actuado en contra de las disposiciones de la Carta Magna.
Finalmente el Poder Judicial deja constancia que si el origen de las acciones del día de hoy esta basado en una orden judicial emitida por Juez competente, su ejecución esta enmarcada dentro de los preceptos legales, y debe desarrollarse contra todo lo que ilegalmente se anteponga a devolver al Estado de Honduras, el Imperio de la Ley.
Tegucigalpa M.D.C., Veintiocho de junio del ano dos mil nueve.
PODER JUDICIAL DE LA NACION"
So, he was ordered to stop since June 20th and he was thrown out the 28th.
Did he stop?
I suppose that Constitutional lawyers like Tosh and company know more than the CSJ of Honduras. I am impressed!
How about the ballots flown in from Venezuela( a foreing nation)? Is that of character politico or not?
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 5:48 pm | #
First of all, I haven't seen any proof that this actually happened. Some media report this (like the whack-job Mary O'Grady whose been wrong on everything Latin American for years), but a lot of media report a lot of bullshit.
Secondly, even if it were true, this has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. A president should be overthrown for using ballots that are printed in another country? Seriously, it just gets dumber and dumber.
And how do ballots printed in another country prove that Venezuela has any undue influence in Honduras?
Nice try AnonIII, but your arguments just get weaker and weaker, more and more pathetic.
So, he was ordered to stop since June 20th and he was thrown out the 28th.
Did he stop?
I suppose that Constitutional lawyers like Tosh and company know more than the CSJ of Honduras. I am impressed!
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 6:34 pm | #
Its really simply Anon. Show me where it says in the constitution that an encuesta popular or an asamblea constituyente is illegal and you win the argument.
Otherwise, this Supreme Court decision has no basis in the constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Well, like in Venezuela, is it the job of the TSJ, in the case of Honduras the CSJ, to interprete the constitution when there is a doubt? Well, they did and they rendered their ruling.
You are an American, right?
Could Obama go against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of constitutional controversy or interpretation?
And if he does, what procedure will he follow to challenge the rulings of the Supreme Court on constitutional matters? I'm curious to know...
Could Obama go against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of constitutional controversy or interpretation?
Stupid oppo-morons. If the Supreme court, congress, and the senate ordered the army to remove Obama by force of arms and fly him out the country at gun point, then all participants and enablers of the defacto resulting government that justify it afterwards, will be executed for high treason.
Avila,
That was not the question, imbecil.
This is:
"Could Obama go against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of constitutional controversy or interpretation? "
Try to use your brain and answer it.
He should have kept his mouth shut!
"Zelaya first broached the topic on November 11, 2008. That day, the San Pedro daily La Prensa reported that the president had proposed that a fourth ballot box be installed at polling places on November 29, 2009. Honduran voting booths presently contain three ballot boxes: one to vote for the president, one for the congressional, and one for local mayoral candidates. Zelaya suggested installing a fourth box to vote on whether or not the electorate wanted to choose a National Constituent Assembly. According to Zelaya, this proposed body would draft a new Honduran constitution. Zelaya seeks a changed constitution which would allow him to run for reelection. On March 24, Zelaya upped the ante by announcing, via executive decree PCM-05-2009, that this national referendum would take place no later than June 28, and that it would be administered by the National Statistical Institute (INE)"
Well, like in Venezuela, is it the job of the TSJ, in the case of Honduras the CSJ, to interprete the constitution when there is a doubt? Well, they did and they rendered their ruling.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 6:51 pm | #
So you admit that the Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional.
According to your logic that means the military should have barged into the judges houses and kidnapped them and forcefully removed them from the country, right?
Another brilliant argument from AnonIII.
Could Obama go against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter of constitutional controversy or interpretation?
The US is far from a good example of a democracy, but this could never happen in the US because the US Supreme Court cannot rule actions of the president to be unconstitutional without having an actual lawsuit brought before them.
Likewise, the US Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions, and therefore could NEVER order the military to kinap the president and force him out of the country.
The Congress would have to enact impeachment proceedings and would have to actually prove that the president had committed a crime. Since the Honduran Congress knew that Zelaya had not committed any crimes, they knew that this was not going to work. That's why the resorted to a coup. (This is about as obvious as it could get)
Keep them coming AnonIII. I will destroy them one by one, and you will just keep looking more and more ridiculous.
Anonymous : wtf are you talking about Kepler? The Caracazo was in 1989. Chávez and Peña were not even on the scene then. You know fuck all about Venezuelan contemporary history.
Chavez was already in the military and created his Movement MBR-200, wikipedia states : In 1983, Chávez established the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement-200 (MBR-200). Wich finally tried 2 times to overthrow a democratically elected goverment.
Also, Chavez had the chance after he came to power in 1998 to get the whole thing to court and get the people responsible for any atrocity in prison. He did not. So when he was in power and had the power to move something, the Caracazo wasn't that important anymore.
Give me a break
and btw.. i'm not Kepler.
Tosh: You see Anon, with this whole due process thing you can't just put someone in jail until they have had a fair trial and have been convicted of a crime. I know that seems strange to a golpista, but that's how most democracies function.
funny, that nobody noticed this perla 
Remember people like the 8 Commisars, up to 5 years in prison without trial ? Or what about Baduel now ? Also in jail without trial.
I guess, that is why you say "most democracies", because in Venezuela obviously it works differently. The only ones being tried in freedom are Chavistas like the leader of "la piedrita", who not only has una orden de captura por homicidio, but also says in public, that he is going to commit more crimes. Neverhteless he is able to leave the country.
I don't like the way, how they did throw Zelaya out, they should at least let him take a 2nd piyama with him, one for the day, one for the night...
But i actually like the following idea : now he has no possibility to remove evidence of his crimes and as i heard, they found quite something...
Tosh,
You need to take a class in reading comprenhension. Re-read my question.
The chied prosecutor in Honduras told Zelaya and the public in general, that it is against the constitution (the 4th ballot box) to make a referndum (non-binding or not) without the approval of the congress. When Zelaya, knowing that he acted against the constitution, put the decree on Saturday about the "encuesta popular", he commited a crime and the institutions reacted. Since the prosecutor was involved in these reactions, there shouldn't be a problem, as he was the one to file a complaint against the president and the court can rule.
Moreover, the decree ( PCM-05-2009) was written back on March 24. When was it publish again?
it was published the day before Zelaya got exiled. Also interesting is article 2 of the decree...
publish=published.
You need to take a class in reading comprenhension. Re-read my question.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 9:13 pm | #
Ah yes, this is classic. Once you've been clearly refuted, simply claim that the other side doesn't understand your argument, but don't specify what exactly they don't understand.
I explained to you exactly why the US Supreme Court could not do to Obama what the Honduran Supreme Court did to Zelaya. I then went on to explain what would happen if Obama did something against the ruling of the Supreme Court. What exactly do you not understand?
Tosh,
Again, would Obama disregard, even if he thought it was wrong, a ruling of the Supreme Court?
Again, would Obama disregard, even if he thought it was wrong, a ruling of the Supreme Court?
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 10:10 pm | #
This wasn't your original question. Apparently YOU need some work on your reading comprehension?
You originally asked if Obama COULD go against the decision of the Supreme Court. The answer is yes, but he might risk impeachment if he had committed, as stated in the constitution, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Now you have changed the question to WOULD Obama go against it. The answer to that is: HOW THE HELL SHOULD I KNOW?
If the US Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to consult the population about their own constitution I should hope that any decent leader would challenge that decision as it clearly had no basis in the constitution.
Now, stop squirming around and just admit it: You have no argument.
Now, allow me to ask you a question:
Would the US military kidnap and forcefully expel Obama from the country if he decided to hold a non-binding vote regarding the constitution?
Now, stop squirming around and just admit it: You have no argument.
Tosh | 07.02.09 - 10:18 pm | #
Tosh, their just acting like the gusanos they aspire to be. Squirming is about one of the only things they know how to do well.
I'am sorry. You are right. It should have been COULD. So, he could but he would risk the the same that Zelaya decided to dive into. I guess the latter knew what was coming to him and he got it!
The other question was: What Government Institution has the latest and last word on Constitutional interpretation regarding what could be reformed or not?
The other question was: What Government Institution has the latest and last word on Constitutional interpretation regarding what could be reformed or not?
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 10:27 pm | #
I answered this. the US Supreme Court cannot rule on the actions of the president unless a lawsuit is brought before it regarding a law.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
to add somethinf to anonIIIs question : What Government Institution has the latest and last word on Constitutional interpretation regarding what could be reformed or not or who can call for a asamblea constitutional or a vote on it ?
Tosh: I answered this. the US Supreme Court cannot rule on the actions of the president unless a lawsuit is brought before it regarding a law.
In case of Honduras this happened by the prosecutor, who said before the decree was activated on Saturday, that he will prosecute any person, that will firm that decree.
"Would the US military kidnap and forcefully expel Obama from the country if he decided to hold a non-binding vote regarding the constitution?"
I don't think so.
As I stated before, I do not agree with the kidnapping but he does deserve to be in jail and defenitely stopped from acting as president instantly.
As I stated before, I do not agree with the kidnapping but he does deserve to be in jail and defenitely stopped from acting as president instantly.
AnonIII | 07.02.09 - 10:32 pm | #
Of course you do, because you're a golpista. Luckily only the most reactionary idiots are on your side. The rest of the world disagrees.
Zelaya had not committed any crimes, nor had he broken the constitution in any way, yet you think he should be overthrown.
Now that I have defeated all of your pathetic arguments, I will move on to more productive endeavors.
Tosh,
You preached: "You see Anon, with this whole due process thing you can't just put someone in jail until they have had a fair trial and have been convicted of a crime. I know that seems strange to a golpista, but that's how most democracies function."
I have three words for you: Peña, Vivas, Simonovic.
I rest my case. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well, I guess Tosh was never part of a debating team. I did not know that to end a debate all one had to was to declare onself a winner.
I have three words for you: Peña, Vivas, Simonovic.
They were tried and convicted. Here is just one small part of the massive amounts of evidence that proved their guilt:
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/y...ticia.php?
22746
Not only do you guys support coups, now you're supporting police brutality and murder.
you didn't understand the question : Remember people like the 8 Commisars, up to 5 years in prison without trial ?
The question was meant to get you to put down your double standards, Zelaya has to be tried in freedom (because he's a good guy, i guess) and these people and Baduel has to be in prison until tried. Especially the case of Baduel, where we don't talk about murder charges or so, is at the end quite similar to the case of Zelaya, who is charged with corruption, traicion a la partia etc.
I hope the writer of this comment at CC does not get mad at me for posting it here but he hit the nail on the head. I apologize.
"Maybe Micheletti is just not your ordinary coupster. It was not Roberto Micheletti that carried out a "coup". It's the WHOLE LOT OF THE HONDURAN INSTITUTIONS that is accused of carrying out a "coup". Congress, Supreme Court judges, and Electoral Court magistrates. Plus local authorities, Police, Army, Navy, Air Force and whatnot. Will they allow Zelaya to come back and have another go at the Constitution again? Will they taste mob rule by Zelaya once more? If they have their wits around them, they will do everything humanly possible to sit this out until the elections are held.
It is a quite curious notion to entertain. A coup by Congress and the whole Judiciary against a President that openly defied them in their role as comptrollers. The representative institutions and the courts of law as coupsters and supporters of a de facto regime because they stopped the President from trying to void the most important provisions in the Constitution with a fait accompli.
The only wrongdoing in this affair was by the military. They should have carried Zelaya before Congress, to be deposed, indicted and thrown in jail. Technically a coup?, yes! Convenient?, yes! Unjust?, yes! Due process would that Zelaya be in jail right now just for leading a mob into an Air Force base and stealing ballot boxes after being warned very explicitly to cease and desist in his plans, that it was illegal for him to call a referendum. So he got freedom and a chance to stir up Chavez with the ALBA countries, and fool Insulza.
It's not because of Chavez and ALBA's storm of BS. It's in spite of it. In spite of Insulza buying into the same BS and dragging the world into acting against the Honduran institutions and in favor of Zelaya. It would not be a bad thing if Insulza's career finished in embarrassment at this point. Imprudence and precipitation are horrifying traits in the General Secretary of a multilateral organization.
Again time plays in favor of the Honduran institutions as more and more of the story becomes generally known. There is little need for evidence to indict Zelaya when he is live on film, leading mob rule. Indicting Chavez will take a little more time and evidence that will come to light as long as the new government is not overthrown and Zelaya does not return to Honduras as a hero of "participatory democracy", a phrase that means one thing to the Swiss and another to Chavez and Ceresole. "
Not only do you guys support coups, now you're supporting police brutality and murder.
Tosh | 07.02.09 - 10:56 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Were they free during the trial as you explained to us it should happen in a normal democracy??? Come on Tosh, there are not too many places to hide...hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Sorry, I am having a field day with Tosh...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Haven't read none of the 218 previous posts, but it looks like unless there are new developments in the mean time, this post will generate more than the 1200+ comments the last one generated. And, at the end who gives a sh*t about this banana republic? The world is changing and all those thieves and thugs that rule you are starting to feel moving sand under their feet.
Were they free during the trial as you explained to us it should happen in a normal democracy??? Come on Tosh, there are not too many places to hide...hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Sorry, I am having a field day with Tosh...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Impartial | 07.03.09 - 12:09 am | #
As any idiot knows, murderers don't usually get to be free during their trial.
Again, the comparison is stupid and too ridiculous to waste time on.
Try not to be so idiotic.
Will they allow Zelaya to come back and have another go at the Constitution again? Will they taste mob rule by Zelaya once more?
Yes, consulting the public is considered "mob rule" by elitists who believe the people are too stupid to know what is good for them.
The representative institutions and the courts of law as coupsters and supporters of a de facto regime because they stopped the President from trying to void the most important provisions in the Constitution with a fait accompli.
False. He was calling for a constitutional assembly, which is not prohibited by the constitution in any way.
The only wrongdoing in this affair was by the military. They should have carried Zelaya before Congress, to be deposed, indicted and thrown in jail.
Except for one small detail. Zelaya hadn't committed any crimes. That's why they knew this wouldn't work.
Due process would that Zelaya be in jail right now just for leading a mob into an Air Force base and stealing ballot boxes after being warned very explicitly to cease and desist in his plans, that it was illegal for him to call a referendum.
Except for the fact that is WASN'T illegal to hold a referendum per a 2006 law, and the later Supreme Court ruling had no basis in the constitution.
It's not because of Chavez and ALBA's storm of BS. It's in spite of it. In spite of Insulza buying into the same BS and dragging the world into acting against the Honduran institutions and in favor of Zelaya
Yes, I guess they've managed to fool pretty much the whole world, except for a handful of geniuses over at Caracas Chronicles.
There is little need for evidence to indict Zelaya when he is live on film, leading mob rule.
Actually, local news agencies reported that the ballots were turned over peacefully, and that the "mob" was actually just a group of demonstrators who thought that consulting the public about important issues was a democratic thing. Apparently elitists such as yourself think that consulting the public on important issues is "mob rule".
We must prevent the people from deciding right? Keep governance out of the hands of the people, and in the hands of the elitist who "know better".
You refer to "illegal coups" as opposed to what?
Impartial | 07.01.09 - 10:37 pm | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_...ki/
20_July_plot
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that public schools were to be desegregated "with all deliberate speed" but there were dejure segregated public schools twenty years later and yet today there are defacto segregated public schools 54 years later. No one has been taken in his pajamas to an airport and deported from the country. The Court simply had no power of enforcement. It relied on the executive branch of the federal and the state governments to carry out its toothless order.
The Court had ordered in the early 70's that women have the right to have abortions but gunslingers and other fanatics along with their elected allies have defacto abolished that right in over half the counties of the USA.
During the Vietnam war the Court refused to rule on whether or not military conscription was the very same thing as the constitutionally banned "involuntary servitude", no doubt because they had more important things to mull over. Draft age youth were morally justified however, if not obligated in fact, to resist conscription into a war that was not declared according to the rules of the Constitution (another question the Court dodged back in those days.)
Bourgeoise judges are a dime a dozen, and often stupid and venal to boot. No person or nation is obligated to bend to whims of a handful of judges. And when they do make decent rulings they are often defied without consequences.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
How_wa...herokee_to_move
The people of Honduras, like the people of New York, have the right to elect whoever they want to elect. If the law says they don't then they have a right to change that law.
Tosh, the spinmaster: now Chavez has stopped all oil shipments to Honduras. In which way is this move any different from the brutal and immoral embargo that the US has imposed on Cuba for so long?
Eugene, who is the people? The pro-Chavez CNE or "the people"? Or "The People"? (i.e. Chavez himself, indivisible and holy)
Same for Honduras.
Impartial,
The people of Honduras have to live with whatever hardship they must go through in order to establish freedom from authoritarian regimes.This is also true of any other country, including the US.Nothing is for free.
But you collapse hierarchies and become morally relativistic when you put Chavez in the same category as that of the US .
The reason why Cuba is poor is that the right to life -- the basis of a free market -- does not legally exist in Cuba. It is Cuba's socialist system that should be condemned -- not the U.S. embargo. In Cuba there is no private property; no private employers (the only employer is the state); the only honest way to support oneself in Cuba is in the black market -- which is next to impossible.
To recommend that the United States drop the embargo with Cuba after Castro nationalized (robbed) the property of all the American companies who invested there (which triggered the embargo) is unjust to the Americans he looted.
I suppose you assume the moral high ground of Castro....
All leftist dictatorships will place blame on the US, and not on the blame of the people themselves.How convenient !
But until each person assumes his portion of responsibility without over relying on government we are going to continue with this kind of problem.
I suggest you study the consequences of high vs low context culture.Of course there will always be a combination of both but it is highly nuanced...from extremely high to extremely low and many areas of gray.
In the event that a high context culture begins to emphasize more the low context, it will stop relying on relationship to a boss( authority)to determine the value of a thought or action and start relying more on independent action and thinking.
Impartial - just think before you write such ingenuous stuff.
Honduras has been condemned by ALL international institutions for the coup.
And you are still trying to find excuses to justify it.
I hope Chavez follows the example of Micheletti and dires all opposition mayors and governors, since this is what the opposition supports in Honduras so let's give them a taste of their own belief medicine in Venezuela.
Tosh
"These kinds of ad-hominem responses are indicative of a realization that your argument has been totally defeated, and that you have no other possible response."
My argument was not defeated because I did not advance it. I only made a statement of fact based on what anyone can read from your comments: insults, unfounded attacks, distortion of facts and events, etc, etc...
So in case you do not get my point, I think that you and anonymous, which is no more than your echo chamber, are a pair of bigoted and violent scumbags.
And do not confuse yourself: this is not an ad-hominem, it is a direct expression of that I think you are. It is up to you to prove that you are not a scumbag.
Anonymous,
Honduras will always be justified in managing its own internal affairs whether or not:
"Honduras has been condemned by ALL international institutions for the coup."
And coup is too strong a word for what the military did.
Coup is more applicable to both Chavez and Zelaya .
The Great Oligarch Chavez thinks he can meddle in the affairs of all others, even to a point of supporting dictatorship.
Changing the meanings of words to suit himself is the new way Oligarchs like Chavez pretend to get away with simple unadulterated criminality.
Chavez is a criminal and criminals all over the world support him because by supporting him they support their own omnipotence.
"Due process would that Zelaya be in jail right now just for leading a mob into an Air Force base and stealing ballot boxes after being warned very explicitly to cease and desist in his plans, that it was illegal for him to call a referendum.
Except for the fact that is WASN'T illegal to hold a referendum per a 2006 law, and the later Supreme Court ruling had no basis in the constitution."
He broke into a military institution and stole ballots. Is that a crime?
Please post here that "2006 law that allows for a referendum.
Again the question: "What Government Institution has the latest and last word on Constitutional interpretation regarding what could be reformed or not or who can call for a asamblea constitutional or a vote on it ?"
Tosh, the constitution of Honduras states clear, when it can be modified (asamblea constitutional is also a modification of the current constitution). He needs the 2/3rd approval of the congress. They didn't approve it.
Even Zelaya knows that, that is why he changed to "non-binding" encuesta, because he knew, he cannot call through popular vote get his asamblea done. You argue that still, tho.
I understand that you want more participative democracy, I also support that, but it must be done within the ley/constitucion. As you demand, that the Supreme Court and army follow the leys, we also demand, that Zelaya feels bound to them.
He simply didn't have the majority of the congress for his project. Period. Nobody forbids, that he works on better results in next elections to get this majority, although he wont be president anymore.
He broke into a military institution and stole ballots. Is that a crime?
From what I've seen the ballots were handed over to the marchers without any violence.
Please post here that "2006 law that allows for a referendum.
Are you serious? You are apparently extremely uninformed about the Honduran situation, yet you have already decided that you support the coup?
http://www.serna.gob.hn/
instituc...n_ciudadana.pdf
Again the question: "What Government Institution has the latest and last word on Constitutional interpretation regarding what could be reformed or not or who can call for a asamblea constitutional or a vote on it ?"
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 11:49 am | #
According to the 2006 law all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations. This law was approved by the Congress and was not contested by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court therefore had no basis in declaring it illegal, and it was clearly unconstitutional and undemocratic to do so, since there was a FREAKING LAW THAT ALLOWED FOR IT!!!!
This is about as obvious as it could get. But when you are an apologist for violent coups and murderous thugs, then I can understand how you'd try to twist it to justify any kind of barbarous act.
If I were you I'd quit right now because you're just looking stupider and stupider the longer you maintain this ridiculous position. It is extremely clear that you have no respect for democracy, and will try to justify this illegal coup regardless of how much evidence is stacked against you.
Tosh, the constitution of Honduras states clear, when it can be modified (asamblea constitutional is also a modification of the current constitution). He needs the 2/3rd approval of the congress. They didn't approve it.
No, the constitution does not prohibit a constitutional assembly in any way. And Zelaya's referendum wouldn't have changed anything in the constitution anyway, so this argument is nonsense.
Even Zelaya knows that, that is why he changed to "non-binding" encuesta, because he knew, he cannot call through popular vote get his asamblea done.
False. The whole proposal was so that there could be a vote in November parallel to the presidential elections to approve a constitutional assembly. The consulta that Zelaya was proposing right now was simply to see if the people supported the idea. There was no reason to make it binding because the real vote wasn't going to be held until November.
You golpistas need to get a little better informed about the situation and stop making shit up.
As you demand, that the Supreme Court and army follow the leys, we also demand, that Zelaya feels bound to them.
He was working within the existing law. There is a 2006 law that allows him to do exactly what he was doing, and he does not need the approval of Congress to call a non-binding consulta. Read the law, and stop making shit up.
"He broke into a military institution and stole ballots. Is that a crime?
From what I've seen the ballots were handed over to the marchers without any violence."
So freaking what? HE BROKE INTO THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO GET THEM!!!!
Let's assume that Zelaya did break in for one moment, why was he not arrested by the police and a prosecutor called to charge him? No - they decided to kipnap him and expel him from the country. In other words GOLPE DE ESTADO.
AnonII has no respect for el estado de derecho and individual liberties = a fucking evil fascist.
Nur_Ich - the word "modification" is not mentioned but the word "reform" is.
A reform is not an "asamblea constituyente" so stop twisting the situation.You do not know whether he had the majority of Congress since the project was never presented to Congress.
firepigette - "And coup is too strong a word for what the military did".
But it was a coup whatever you think.
Why do yoou try to mjustify the military action taken and the expulsion of Zelaya?
If you supprt this sort of action I bet you would cry blue murder if Chavez decided to do the same to the opposition governors and mayors, by just removing them.
This is the deep rooted hypocricy of the opposition. Chavez is simply following the internationally agreed policy on Honduras so if he is interfering, so are 197 other countries of the UN.
Don't be so obviously stupid in your assertions.
So freaking what? HE BROKE INTO THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO GET THEM!!!!
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 2:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Listen you stupid moron - consitutionally Zelaya was and still is Commander in Chief of the Honduran Armed Forces, so how could he be breaking any law in that capacity by entering a military base?
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: Tosh is now an expert in Honduran constitutional law. Stay tuned, still to come:
Tosh lectures on Bhutan labor law.
History, Present and Future of divorce law in Nepal.
Perspective of Maritime law in Bolivia.
This guy is a genius.
I am trying to copy (select) several articles from this "http://www.serna.gob.hn/ instituc...n_ciudadana.pdf" link but I cannot select as text. Does anybody have any idea how to do it? Thanks!
So freaking what? HE BROKE INTO THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO GET THEM!!!!
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 2:00 pm | #
Got any evidence that that actually happened? Or are you just taking Mary O'Grady's word for it. Lord knows she's never wrong about anything!!!
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: Tosh is now an expert in Honduran constitutional law. Stay tuned, still to come:
Impartial, thanks for clearly admitting that your argument is dead in the water, and therefore can make no other response but this kind of childish nonsense.
http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/...ry/
1125872.html
Read this. Top Hunduran Military Lawyer admits that they BROKE THE LAW.
Now are you morons going to continue defending a coup with this expert evidence and opinion now available?
The encuesta wouldn't have changed the constitution, that is right, but the outcome would have been a "real referendum" to change the constitution. OK, now he says, that it's just to have a reason to bring it to the congress, but then again explain the article 2 of the above mentioned decree issued the day before the encuesta was supposed to be held.
He (Zelaya) allocated state resources (means, resources of the state, meant for the benefit of all hondureños) to start a personal project, not even a party project, as his own party didn't support it. Therefore he already was culpable of misuse of state resources.
Also there are allegations of his own party, that Zelaya wanted to dissolve the congress and create the assembly right away, if the result of the encuesta is positive for his project.
To bring it in a context with Venezuela and what you accept here :
Chavez modified through his last referendum articles of the venezolan constitution about the re-election. This happened obviously with approval of the TSJ, although the constitution says, that an amendment cannot change principles of the constitution, wich is Alternabilidad entre otros. They did it by redefining the word itself. Although we from the opposition point of view see it differently, have to accept, what the TSJ says.
Zelaya ignored, what the Supreme Court there said. He is not above the supreme court, now is he ?
So freaking what? HE BROKE INTO THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO GET THEM!!!!
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 2:00 pm | #
This argument is stupid for three reasons:
1. It was the military that confiscated them from the presidential residence in the first place, so Zelaya was simply trying to get the ballots back.
2. Zelaya is the commander-in-chief of the Honduran military, which makes it really stupid to say he "broke in". How can a commander-in-chief break into a military base when he is the highest authority of the military in the first place?
3. Because it was a peaceful march to the military base, and the material was handed over without any violence.
On Thursday, Honduras's top electoral tribunal ordered authorities to pick up all the ballots and other electoral material, which was being held by the country's air force.
In response, Mr. Zelaya called his supporters on the streets and marched them over to the base to try to claim the voting materials.
"No one is going to stop Sunday's referendum," he told a cheering crowd. He called on the army to obey his orders. "If an army rebels against a president, then we are back to the era of the cavemen, back to the darkest chapters in Honduran history." Air force officers handed over the material without incident, according to local press reports.
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB...9604957305.html
Give it a rest AnonIII. Every argument you pull out of your ass just gets destroyed.
No, Anonymous chaburro,
What he said was that it was a crime to take him out of the country. Mosy of the Opposition bloggers agree with that. What is been discussed here if that HE BKOKE THE LAW/VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION and for that he needed to be arrested and thrown in jail to wait for his impeachment.
"''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. "
Tosh,
Since you are a constitutional lawyer, please list here the accasions when a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is justified in going over the TSJ/CSJ /Supreme Court rulings.
It's incredible that the opposition will not accept the fact that the action taken against Zelaya has been condemned world wide as a coup. That's enough for most right thinking people.Since Zelaya was never charged how could he have BROKE THE LAW/VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION?
This is at best hearsay and a court of law would have to decide that - not you and the private media.
The encuesta wouldn't have changed the constitution, that is right, but the outcome would have been a "real referendum" to change the constitution.
Wrong. For a referendum to take place in November it would have to go before the Congress anyway. The encuesta popular was simply to see if the people supported it, and Congress was too afraid that maybe the population would support it.
He (Zelaya) allocated state resources (means, resources of the state, meant for the benefit of all hondureños) to start a personal project, not even a party project, as his own party didn't support it. Therefore he already was culpable of misuse of state resources.
It doesn't matter if his party doesn't support it. Read the law. He is perfectly within the law to call for a consulta popular, and he had some 400,000 signatures in support of it.
Also there are allegations of his own party, that Zelaya wanted to dissolve the congress and create the assembly right away, if the result of the encuesta is positive for his project.
Who gives a shit what the allegations are? You cannot stop a popular vote from taking place just because there are some "allegations" that say this or that.
What if there were allegations that Zelaya is an alien? Would that be relevant?
This happened obviously with approval of the TSJ, although the constitution says, that an amendment cannot change principles of the constitution, wich is Alternabilidad entre otros.
They did not change the principle of alternabilidad. You obviously don't understand what the principle of alternabilidad is.
The principle simply means that there exists the option of alternating who is in power. It does not mean that the presidency MUST be alternated every presidential term. It only means that there must exist the possibility to alternate the presidency, which means there must be elections after every presidential term, and there must be political plurality in order to choose between various candidates.
La alternabilidad es la posibilidad real de que los gobernantes cambien periódicamente mediante mecanismos legales, principalmente electorales, a fin de que determinados partidos o personas no se perpetúen en el poder, lo cual es por esencia antidemocrático.
Alternabilidad still exists in Venezuela. The presidency can change if someone else is elected. The opposition's problem is that no one takes them seriously enough to vote for them.
Zelaya ignored, what the Supreme Court there said. He is not above the supreme court, now is he ?
Nur_Ich | 07.03.09 - 3:33 pm | #
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a non-binding consulta popular, and, even if they did, the consulta was within the bounds of the law. The 2006 law clearly provides for them. So the Supreme Court had no basis for declaring it illegal.
Since you are a constitutional lawyer, please list here the accasions when a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is justified in going over the TSJ/CSJ /Supreme Court rulings.
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 3:59 pm | #
When that Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional and against the law which I cited for you above.
In addition, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction regarding things that are non-binding for the simple fact that they will not change the law or the constitution.
The Supreme Court can only rule over matters that will have an effect on the law or the constitution.
nowhere in that 2006 law it states, that they can call for a referendum to change the constitution, a power that lies only by the congress (wich is also elected btw.)
So the constitution states, who has the power to change the constitution (a job the Asamblea constituyente would do) and Zelaya does a low about partizipative democracy and hopes, nobody would see, that he tries to put a law above the constitution, as his buddy Chavez always gets away with.
The Supreme Court can only rule over matters that will have an effect on the law or the constitution.
Read the decree Zelaya issued, that was the problem afaik, that he got ousted in the end...
nowhere in that 2006 law it states, that they can call for a referendum to change the constitution, a power that lies only by the congress (wich is also elected btw.)
For the last fucking time, THE REFERENDUM THAT ZELAYA WAS CALLING FOR WAS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION YOU FUCKING NIMROD!!!!!!
IT WAS NON-BINDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking stupid are you guys anyway?
How fucking stupid are you guys anyway?
Tosh | 07.03.09 - 4:20 pm | #
I'll field that one Tosh. I would say, very. But they will squirm and pull shit out of thin air to justify it. That remark about Zelaya being an alien just gave then another excuse to justify the coup. Ah what would the world be like without our friendly neighborhood oppo-morons. Keep on trucking oppo-morons.
Tosh,
Did you even read the rest of the 2006 law beyond the first paragraph?
For those interested in the legality of Zelaya's "non-binding" polls, please read the 2006 law posted by Tosh.
And Tosh, you do not have a leg to stand on!
Learn how to read!!
"Poder Legislativo
EL CONGRESO NACIONAL,
CONSIDERANDO: Que la Constitución de laRepüblica establece que la soberania corresponde al pueblo del cual emanan los Poderes del Estado. El sistema de Gobierno es democrático y representativo mediante el cual se garantizan los derechos de asociación .y de petición como, sustento de la participación ciudadana.
ARTICULO 2.—La participación ciudadana se fundamenta en los principios de:
1) DEMOCRACIA PARTICIPATIVA: Permite la igualdad de oportunidades de los habitantes, para la adopción, ejecución y evaluación de politicas publicas sin discriminaciones de carácter politico, religioso, racial, ideológico, de género o de ninguna otra especie;
ARTICULO 3.—Los mecanismos de la Participación Ciudadana entre otros son:
1) Piebiscito;
2) Referendum;
3) Cabildos abiertos municipaics;
4) Iniciativa Ciudadana; y,
5) Otros seflaladas en la Ley.
ARTICULO 4.—El plebiscito, referendum y cabildos abiertos, como instancias de participacion ciudadana serán ejercidos de conformidad con los que establece la Constitucion y las leyes, sin perjuicio de lo establecido en la Ley de Municipalidades.
ARTiCULO 5.—La iniciativa ciudadana es un mecanismo de participación mediante el cual el ciudadano podrá presentar las solicitudes e iniciativas siguientes:
• 1) Solicitar que los titulares de Organos o dependencias püblicas de cualquiera de los poderes del Estado, que convoque ala ciudadania en general, a los vecinos de un Municipio, de un barrio o colonia, a gremios, sectores o grupos sociales organizados, para que emitan opiniones y formulen propuestas de solución a problemas colectivos que les afecten, Los resultados no serán vinculantes pero Si elementos dejuicio para el ejercicio de las funciones del convocante; y,
2) Ofrecer colaboracin a la autoridad püblica, en la ejecucion de una obra o la prestación de un servicio, aportando para su realización recursos económicos, materiales o trabajo personal, para beneficio de la comunidado del Estado. El órgano püblico competente, de acuerdo con sus disponibilidades financieras, podrá
• aportar recursos para coayudvar en la ejecución de las obras o en su caso, hacer un llamado püblico para que otros ciudadanos, empresas o grupos sociales colaboren con su ejecución.
Estas iniciativas ciudadanas podrán ser planteadas no solamente por ciudadanos individualmente considerados, sino que también por asociaciones civiles, patronatos, empresas, gremios o cualquier otro grupo social organizado."
Errors on my posting come from using Microsoft Office Document Imaging to select the text on PDF.
Tosh and Anon3,
Can you guys post the pdf somewhere to download. it seem that the link no longer allows access or something. It says 401 unauthorized.
scratch that. I got it.
For those interested in the legality of Zelaya's "non-binding" polls, please read the 2006 law posted by Tosh.
And Tosh, you do not have a leg to stand on!
Learn how to read!!
Oh really??? Care to show me where it says that Zelaya's poll is illegal?
Nice try AnonIII. We aren't that stupid though.
Hahahahaha! Talk about not having a leg to stand on!!! How many times have I refuted this Anon guy's nonsense so far?
Tosh,
Care to should where it says that he could call a poll binding or non-binding to call for Constituyente to change unchangeable articles of the constitution?
Do not be lazy and read the whole thing.
should=show
Tosh,
Take the time and list the occasions (they are all there in the law of 2006) when a citizen could call for:
1) Piebiscito;
2) Referendum;
3) Cabildos abiertos municipaics;
4) Iniciativa Ciudadana; y,
5) Otros seflaladas en la Ley.
I guess you are going to take refuge on #5. But then, again, the Honduras Legislative Power and the CSJ using the CONSTITUTION would decide what they are.
If you are going to base your argument that Zelaya was right because it was in the 2006 law, you will lose that argument.
Think of something else. I know you can.
Do not be lazy and read the whole thing.
AnonIII | 07.03.09 - 6:44 pm | #
Hahahaha! You're pathetic.
Rather than just admit that you are wrong, you resort to this tactic claiming that it says it "somewhere" in the law, yet you can't show me where.
Care to should where it says that he could call a poll binding or non-binding to call for Constituyente to change unchangeable articles of the constitution?
Apparently you're still uninformed about this whole situation.
I will explain it to you one more time for the extremely thick-headed morons.
Zelaya was calling for a non-binding poll to see if the people supported having a referendum in November that, if approved, would allow for a Constitutional Assembly.
The poll was NOT to have a Constitutional Assembly, and would NOT change ANYTHING in the Constitution. It was to find out of the population supported having a VOTE on it in November, and it was totally non-binding. Here's the text of the consulta:
¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente que apruebe una nueva Constitución política?"
It would not provide for a Constitutional Assembly, but would only put it on the ballot so that the Honduran people could decide in November.
This is clearly allowed for in the 2006 Ley de Participación Ciudadana, in Article 3 which says:
ARTICULO 3.—Los mecanismos de la Participación Ciudadana entre otros son:
1) Piebiscito;
2) Referendum;
3) Cabildos abiertos municipaics;
4) Iniciativa Ciudadana; y,
5) Otros seflaladas en la Ley.
And in Article 5 which says:
ARTiCULO 5.—La iniciativa ciudadana es un mecanismo de participación mediante el cual el ciudadano podrá presentar las solicitudes e iniciativas siguientes:
• 1) Solicitar que los titulares de Organos o dependencias püblicas de cualquiera de los poderes del Estado, que convoque ala ciudadania en general, a los vecinos de un Municipio, de un barrio o colonia, a gremios, sectores o grupos sociales organizados, para que emitan opiniones y formulen propuestas de solución a problemas colectivos que les afecten, Los resultados no serán vinculantes pero Si elementos dejuicio para el ejercicio de las funciones del convocante; y,
Seriously, AnonIII, I'd suggest you change your nick after this debate. You've been completely humiliated.
In addition, the 2000 law, Ley del Instituto Nacional de Estadística, allows the INE to do this kind of opinion poll, which is exactly who was in charge of carrying it out.
http://www.ine-hn.org/pdf/leyine.pdf
Keep squirmin' AnonIII. It is quite enjoyable to watch you flail in the wind.
We're a quarter of the way there, Tosh. Keep going. We need another 1000 post comment section!!!
Speaking of who's a moron, who's humiliated, etc...History will prove you're the moron, Tosh. You're just like the "useful idiots" who supported Stalin.
jsb | 07.03.09 - 7:54 pm | #
In your case we don't have wait for history.Your an useful idiot that supports overthrow of democracy cuz' your freedom fries US media says it's okay and democratic. Your ad-hominem speakss volumes. Stick to what Tosh has posted.
Tosh,
Who was the head of the INE before Alma Rodas de Fiallos?
Tosh: For the last fucking time, THE REFERENDUM THAT ZELAYA WAS CALLING FOR WAS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION YOU FUCKING NIMROD!!!!!!
IT WAS NON-BINDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking stupid are you guys anyway?
at least we get the level of your intelligence proofed once more...
As for the main point : I don't know, if you got it, but you're not a lawyer in Honduras nor do you know the laws and the constitution very well (neither do I, i have to admit). Therefore i leave that to the Supreme Court there, who ordered the capture of Zelaya and repeated to Insulza today again, that Zelaya will be tried for his crimes when he comes back to Honduras. So Zelaya can be happy not to be in Honduras, since he is facing 20 years +.
But if you think you know laws and constitution better than the hondurian supreme court, feel free to apply for a job there, lol
Otherwise just get a grip. That's their mess in Honduras and they have soverign rights to clean up, without interference from the outside.
I wonder what you would say, if Insulza would be eager to defend Ledezma in Caracas... But i bet, i know it already, like a good Loro : Insulza pendejo, we are a sovereign country, you can't tell us anything about we do our things here.. lol
Aliva: In your case we don't have wait for history.Your an useful idiot that supports overthrow of democracy cuz' your freedom fries US media says it's okay and democratic.
Strange overthrow of democracy, when the new presidents don't even mind to hold election earlier than november and let the voters decide, once again. He doesn't seem to care aboutt he power of a president, but only about the health of the democracy in his country, this Micheletti.
And how democratic is it anyway what they did with the Alcaldia Mayor in Caracas. When you tell me, how they respected the voters in Caracas, i will tell you, how the voters are respected in Honduras :p But i guess, you can't really justify that.
Tosh, don't waste your time discussing with these guys. Remember, the majority of the opposition is commited to a certain - more or less democracy-like - form of government where right-wing ideas prevail, which they will defend using any technicality they can put their hands on and spin as if they were the wise-men of constitutionalism.
More important is to know where you stand and what is the enemy to defeat. The coupsters will have to manage a pariah country, with 450 to 500 MM USD less due to the frozen financial aids, 200.000 barrels of oil a day without the preferencial payment system that Petrocaribe allowed and a huge international pressure on their backs... which you can tell is already taking a big, demoralizing toll on the Micheletti and friends.
From this crisis is emerging a unified left movement, the one that was crippled and traumatized the country during those terror days of the Battalion 316 when John Negroponte helped send drugs to California and contras to Nicaragua.
This coup has put a magnifying glass on an otherwise irrelevant and empoverished piece of land in Central America: The original "banana republic".
Btw, take a look at the "democratic" strategies of the Honduran gorilas use to interfere with the popular uprising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...h?
v=MVGWAX4Juto
Speaking of who's a moron, who's humiliated, etc...History will prove you're the moron, Tosh. You're just like the "useful idiots" who supported Stalin.
jsb | 07.03.09 - 7:54 pm | #
When all of your arguments have been refuted, and you have nothing left, the only thing you can do is yell at the other person "You're wrong!" and then call them a Stalinist or something.
But if you think you know laws and constitution better than the hondurian supreme court, feel free to apply for a job there, lol
Otherwise just get a grip.
Again, when you can't possibly come up with an argument to refute all the evidence stacked against you, its always better to refrain from the argument at hand and simply claim that your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about.
You guys are hilarious.
Strange overthrow of democracy, when the new presidents don't even mind to hold election earlier than november and let the voters decide, once again.
Once again? The whole purpose of the coup was to PREVENT a popular vote to allow the people to decide whether or not they want to rewrite their constitution. Boy, you guys will do whatever you can to try to make this coup sound democratic won't you?
Tosh, don't waste your time discussing with these guys. Remember, the majority of the opposition is commited to a certain - more or less democracy-like - form of government where right-wing ideas prevail,
I know Domingo, you're right. I shouldn't waste the time, but it really is fun watching the oppo morons flail in the wind with their idiotic arguments.
Tosh: Again, when you can't possibly come up with an argument to refute all the evidence stacked against you, its always better to refrain from the argument at hand and simply claim that your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about.
ah, so you are right and all institutions in Honduras are wrong. yeah, take your medicine and when you wake up, we will be at your service again, mico mandante...
Once again? The whole purpose of the coup was to PREVENT a popular vote to allow the people to decide whether or not they want to rewrite their constitution. Boy, you guys will do whatever you can to try to make this coup sound democratic won't you?
There is a court decision, that this vote is illegal. There is a court decision to kick Zelaya out of his job to stand trial for his crimes. And the "coupsters" don't even want the power, but give it back to the people instantly. And the interims president doesn't want the power either and even is on record saying, that he doesn't mind to hold elections earlier, where he isn't even candidate.
So where did the people in Caracas had the chance to participate, when Chavez decided to take all from the Alcalde Mayor Ledezma and give his responisbilities to a person, he assigned with his finger, totally ignoring the popular vote. I mean, ledezma is right saying, that he almost got as much votes as Zelaya :p
ah, so you are right and all institutions in Honduras are wrong.
Is this some kind of attempt at Ad Populum??? Hahaha, that's funny because you can't even win that one either.
Almost the whole world is against this coup. The United Nations and OAS both agree almost unanimously. The only people in the whole world who are with the Honduran coup leaders are Latin America's extreme right-wing idiots. Shit, even Uribe is against the coup! Seriously, wake up.
There is a court decision, that this vote is illegal.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over non-binding polls for the very reason that they have no impact on the law or the constitution.
Not only that but the Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional, undemocratic and illegal, as it goes against a 2006 law that clearly allows for referendum.
There is a court decision to kick Zelaya out of his job to stand trial for his crimes.
The court cannot make this decision. Impeachment proceedings have to come from the Congress, and there must be due process before any action can be taken.
You just look more and more ridiculous the more you try to manipulate the truth to justify an illegal coup.
And the "coupsters" don't even want the power, but give it back to the people instantly.
OH, well that makes it all okay then. Those coupsters are so nice!!! (Except for the fact that they prevented the people from deciding about their own constitution. Whoops, I guess they just overlooked that when they decided to be so "democratic")
And the interims president doesn't want the power either and even is on record saying, that he doesn't mind to hold elections earlier, where he isn't even candidate.
He's also on record saying that he is opposed to coups. I guess that means his word isn't worth jack shit now doesn't it?
Nur_Ich, you just might be dumber than Kepler. And that's really hard to do.
"Not only that but the Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional, undemocratic and illegal, as it goes against a 2006 law that clearly allows for referendum."
BULLSHIT!!! Nowhere in that law says that a referendum could be used for that purpose. It is very specific on what occasions a referendum, binding or non-binding could be used. You posted the law. NOW READ IT!!!!
"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."
That is why the 2006 law is so specific about what and whom can call for a referendum/poll binding or non-binding.
Please read your own links!
"OH, well that makes it all okay then. Those coupsters are so nice!!! (Except for the fact that they prevented the people from deciding about their own constitution. Whoops, I guess they just overlooked that when they decided to be so "democratic")"
Hold on, was it just a non-binding referendum, basically to see what people's opinion was or was it, as you put it, "deciding about their own constitution". The difference is subtle but very important. It is very clear that they were trying to decide on the constitution, and that can onlyl be done having 2/3 of the Congress. If he wanted to know what people's opinion was, he could have hired a pollster.
It is clear to everybody that he was trying to set the scenario to overcome that annoying Constitution. After all, people's will is above the Constitution, right?
OT: where is all the money Venezuela had??? PDVSA still owes billions to its contractors, they have not paid most of the expropriations, nationalizations, etc., etc. Could it be they are broke??? Naaahhhh, Chavez is smarter than that...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well put Impartial, this Tosh is nothing but a young boy who thinks he is being tough by doing the "revolution" but will shit in his pants when people take to the streets and start expressing their anger. All the aggresiveness he shows on his rants are typical of a person who is sexually frustrated. I would give him some action to see if he releases some steam, but I saw one of his pictures and, let me tell you, my pussy would never forgive me for feeding her Chris. We'll have to keep putting up with him until some young Venezuelan who thinks he is a good gate to a green card spreads her legs and lets him flush some of his cream.
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."
That is why the 2006 law is so specific about what and whom can call for a referendum/poll binding or non-binding.
Holy fuck you oppo-morons have the memory of a gold fish.
Answered here:
Tosh:
"I will explain it to you one more time for the extremely thick-headed morons.
Zelaya was calling for a non-binding poll to see if the people supported having a referendum in November that, if approved, would allow for a Constitutional Assembly.
The poll was NOT to have a Constitutional Assembly, and would NOT change ANYTHING in the Constitution. It was to find out of the population supported having a VOTE on it in November, and it was totally non-binding."
If you really (I mean really) believe that he was just checking out and had no intentions to try to use the results to vote around the Constitution, well, I think you are beyond redemption (Tosh is, we all know that).
He could have used a pollster to see what the people's mood was. It would have been cheaper and less problematic. He just wanted to set the stage of "People are overwhelmingly in favor of reelection, so we have to please the people...ergo, screw the Constitution".
Again, you are not being truthful, but hey, you support Chavez, and truth has gone by the way side long ago with you guys.
Aliva,
Did you read the 2006 law? Please list here what that law says about calling for a poll/referendum/consult (binding or none-binding) to ask for a constitutional change?
If should not be that hard since you read the whole document, right?
The document lists all the accasions, specificaly!
Eugene, who is the people? The pro-Chavez CNE or "the people"? Or "The People"? (i.e. Chavez himself, indivisible and holy)
Same for Honduras.
Kepler | Homepage | 07.03.09 - 9:03 am | #
The voters.
I doubt that Chavez is God, even though the Rastafarians say God is a living man.
BULLSHIT!!! Nowhere in that law says that a referendum could be used for that purpose. It is very specific on what occasions a referendum, binding or non-binding could be used. You posted the law. NOW READ IT!!!!
AnonIII | 07.04.09 - 5:12 pm | #
What's so funny is that you keep repeating these allegations about what the law supposedly "says" yet you can't actually point to where it says that.
The 2006 law does NOT say for what purpose the referendums can be held. Apparently you have a reading problem.
This is very simple Anon. If it prohibits referendum for certain purposes just show us where. Stop claiming it says something. Just show us where.
We all know why you won't. Because you can't.
Not only are you a golpista piece of trash, but you're a lying fuck too.
Did you read the 2006 law? Please list here what that law says about calling for a poll/referendum/consult (binding or none-binding) to ask for a constitutional change?
Holy shit this guy is fucking DENSE!!!!!!!!!!!
ONE MORE TIME FOR THE TOTALLY FUCKING THICK HEADED IDIOTIC MORONS!!!
The referendum was NOT going to change the fucking constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've tried this argument over and over again, and we've refuted it over and over again. Can't you come up with anything better?
He could have used a pollster to see what the people's mood was. It would have been cheaper and less problematic.
He was using the National Institute of Statistics!!!!! It IS a pollster!!!!
If you really (I mean really) believe that he was just checking out and had no intentions to try to use the results to vote around the Constitution, well, I think you are beyond redemption
Of course he would use the results to pressure for a change in the constitution if the people approved it.
Don't you think it would only be democratic to follow the will of the people?? (that was the whole purpose of the 2006 law anyway, to gauge public opinion on important issues so that the government could be more representative of the population).
Either way, he didn't do anything unconstitutional or illegal.
No matter how long you guys try to justify this, you will just continue to be proven wrong over and over and over again.
JSB and others, please, help me add here other steps taken by Chavez thugs to get more power:
http://venezuela-europa.blogspot...tates-
does.html
Eugene,
Which voters?
As far as I know not all Venezuelans voted for Chavez...even if we believe what CNE says.
By the way: my vote and that of 25000 Venezuelans abroad was not counted and that is just one tiny example we can easily prove. There are a lot more.
Paper trail don't work.
Tosh and Domingo:
Stop wasting your time with these people. They are incapable of independent thought. Their only motivation is Chavez-bashing. They couldn't care less if those they're supporting are criminals or neo-nazis, all their flaws are rendered unimportant (or even convenient) because the coupsters are Anti-Chavez. Therefore they have to be good dictators. No matter how many poor they kill and how much repression they are responsible for.
Pepito, what worse criminals than the brother of Jesse Chacon, who has hundreds of millions of dollars now when he was penniless in 2001?
And the fact since Chavez is in power extra 8000 poor people are killed every year in Venezuela?
And the fact Chavez is one of the most fascist blokes in Latin America today (Fatherland, Socialism or Death, obligation to serve Chavez is employed by the state, obligation to march for Chavez if you want a scholarship, support of Iran's mullah regime, etc)
Chavez was the first coupster in Venezuela since his idol, Perez Jimenez, was force to flee.
W0w, these people are totally dissociated from any semblence of reality!
Flanker, OW--how about allowing the people to take over this blog? Or, do you want this blog to become a refuge for rightwing, middle class fanatics with a perpetual axe to grind?
Quico, Daniel, and Miguel Octavio have all distinguished themselves at fanatical haters of anything remotely democratic. Let the irrational haters commiserate over there.
I am not advocating banning or censoring--but it would be nice to have the old, regularly up-dated Oil Wars back.
Just say'n....
Tosh, I know you love to body-slam these fanaticos, but, really, there is no progress to be made with people so steeped in such an uncritical worldview. It's like shooting fish in a plastic pool, too easy
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez
from the July 2, 2009 edition
Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.
It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
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
Cont.:
"... 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."
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."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 12
members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.
Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
Military opens fire on demonstrators at airport.
President is fix'n to land.
This is time to take Honduras back from the facists.
More shots at airport, chaos.
"This is slaughter.
T
anonIII--your Mr. Sanchez should start shopping for a new address.
If the president is not returned to power, some oligarch businesses should have to start being torched starting this evening.
Live by the coup, die by the coup.
You are living in times of slave revolt. Word.
Well so mfar the army has shoe 2 protesters dead and injured seveal otehrs at the airport.
There a good chance that they will also take Zelaya out......and then there will be an invasion. Escríbanlo.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
False. I've already explained this to you. First of all, it was non-binding, so in NO way would it call for a constitutional assembly, regardless of the result.
Secondly, it was simply calling for a VOTE about a constitutional assembly, that would have to pass through the Congress before November anyway.
It was nothing more than an opinion poll, that WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED A SINGLE FUCKING LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
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."
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."
Also false. Please show where Zelaya proposed, directly or indirectly, that he wanted to stay in the presidency. The referendum had nothing to do with that.
The November vote for a constitutional assembly would have taken place parallel to the presidential elections in which ZELAYA WAS NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE!!!!!
Looks like Octavio Sanchez needs to get his facts straight.
But notice how AnonIII can't come up with his own arguments. He simply pastes other people's arguments (which are also easy to refute), because he's too stupid to come up with his own comments. First he was posting the idiotic Mary O'Grady, and after that was destroyed he moved onto this Octavio Sanchez, who also has manipulated the facts to support an illegal coup.
Nice work AnonIII. But you'll have to do a little better than that.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.
Again false. The military's top lawyer already admitted that they broke the law.
http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/...ry/
1125872.html
Is there anything else you'd like me to easily refute AnonIII?
Tosh,
You have not refuted anything. You pretend to know the Honduras Constitution better than a Hondurian ex-Minister.
You are either very young or very arrogant or both.
"I am not advocating banning or censoring--but it would be nice to have the old, regularly up-dated Oil Wars back.".
Regular updates will keep the rightwing away how?
Just ignore the irrational posters.
PS Yes I know the sites needs more updates, but frankly things are not going well with the Venezuelan economy right now and that is what this site mostly talks about, do you want posts about the per capita recession?
"You have not refuted anything..."
I'm sorry AnonIII, could you be a little more vague?
AP reporters claim that the people shot in the head was in cold blood, is this what the Venezuelan opposition supports?
Another top level posts
You have not refuted anything. You pretend to know the Honduras Constitution better than a Hondurian ex-Minister.
You're right AnonIII. I didn't refute you this time. The Honduran military's top lawyer is the one that refuted you. You're right.... for once.
Flanker,
No, that is not what the opposition supports.
Is cold-blooded killing Primero de Justicia people in Anzoategui what people like you support?
Well, I do apprciate your efforts--at least OW didn't turn over the keys to an undemocratic rightwinger.
Commenting by HaloScan
