U.S. owes Zelaya stronger backing

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. owes Zelaya stronger backing
By Luis Martin-Cabrera
2:00 a.m. September 4, 2009

On June 28, officers of the Honduran army stormed the house of the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya was kidnapped and sent to exile in Costa Rica. Roberto Micheletti, a former president of the congress and a member of Zelaya's own Liberal Party, was subsequently named “interim president.”

Since then, several media outlets have repeated the rationale that the perpetrators provide to justify their actions: Zelaya, they say, wanted to modify the constitution illegally in order to keep himself in power.

Fortunately, few in Latin America accept the lies fabricated by the new Micheletti government after the coup. From the Caribbean to the Southern Cone, Latin American presidents quickly condemned the coup d'etat and demanded the immediate return of President Zelaya to Honduras. Given the infamous long list of U.S.-backed military interventions in the region — Guatemala (1954, 1963 and 1983), Dominican Republic (1962 and 1965), Chile (1973), El Salvador (1980), etc. — there is, not surprisingly, a very low threshold of tolerance for political authoritarianism in the region. In Honduras itself, we must not forget, there was a U.S.-backed coup in 1963 that paved the way for the establishment of a series of military regimes that lasted until the 1980's.

Yet if this history is present in the minds of most Latin Americans, it is not due to the kindness of their politicians. It is rather thanks to the relentless pressure of political activists and human rights organizations. In such places as Guatemala, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, these grassroots groups have forced the new democratic governments to try those responsible for human rights violations and have insisted on preserving historical memory.

More:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/04/us-owes-zelaya-stronger-backing/?opinion&zIndex=160228

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Zelaya was removed by the Honduran Supreme Court

and replaced with the next in line constitutionally.

This is an internal Honduran matter and international law has no bearing on this.

The author of the cited article is clearly willing to address inconvenient facts

[formercia]

2. The OAS says otherwise.

and your argument fails to convince me.

[IDFbunny]

3. The OAS has no authority

to rule on anybodies constitution.

[formercia]

4. Feh.

Meh.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Actually they don't. Even the most strident Zelaya supporters agree that the court removed

him from office. They argue it was not legal and that the army exiled him illegally.

The Honduran Supreme Court is the ultimate authority to determine what is legal under their constitution, and they are the ones who removed him. His removal was therefore legal by the highest controlling legal authority.

Exiling him was illegal per the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya is free to return at any time. However, there are warrants out for his arrest if he does.

[MasonJar]

5. Balderdash!!!!!! Zelaya was one of the rich men who when elected

decided to help the ordinary people. He raised the minimum wage, advocated for better school systems and a few other modest advances. The rich couldn't stand it. And apparently neither could the Obama administration, which was one of the few international communities not to immediately objet to the overthrow of a legitimately elected president.

[IDFbunny]

6. Did he raise wages by decree

or was it law passed by congress and signed by him?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. His wealth is irrelevant. He was removed by the Honduran Supreme Court

The argument is whether or not that removal was legally justifiable. The problem with those who say it was not is that the Honduran Supreme Court is the highest legal authority on what is legal in Honduras. There is no higher authority.

His exile was clearly a violation of the Honduran Constitution. He can return at any time, though there at least one arrest warrant out for him.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Opinion: Honduran coup has been far from bloodless

Opinion: Honduran coup has been far from bloodless
By Dana Frank
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 09/03/2009 08:00:00 PM PDT

A myth has already taken root about the June 28 military coup in which Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was carted off to Costa Rica: that it's been a quiet, peaceful affair and hardly anyone's been hurt. Despite enormous evidence to the contrary, many commentators are now even referring to a "bloodless coup," or, worse, suggesting that Honduras is already such a violent country that any further violence is just normal.

But human rights groups and numerous other outside observers report that at least a dozen people have been killed for their political activities since the coup, more than 3,500 detained for peacefully demonstrating, and hundreds beaten while in custody. There's plenty of blood flowing, just one indication of the massive wave of repression ripping through Honduras.

In the face of these crimes, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton need to stop equivocating and not just withdraw aid but also immediately withdraw the U.S. ambassador, freeze the bank accounts of the oligarchs running the coup and immediately restore President Manuel Zelaya to his full powers.

Most Americans are not aware that when the coup began, the military immediately occupied all major government buildings, took over hospitals, the immigration service and border enforcement, and, most ominously, superseded police and elected authorities.

Media outlets opposed to the coup were shut down immediately, and freedom of the press and airwaves has been suspended ever since. In El Progreso, soldiers occupied and closed Radio Progreso, a Jesuit-owned station.

Roberto Micheletti's military government has been suspending civil liberties guaranteed by the Honduran Constitution. Four days into the coup, his rump Congress passed laws outlawing any meeting of more than three people, limiting freedom of movement and making it legal to search homes without a warrant.

More:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13264397

Originally posted by DU'er Downwinder in the Latin America forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x22060