What's the difference between Zelaya and Bush?

[joey93turbo]

I'm really having a hard time understanding what appears to be a double standard from most of you here. Maybe you guys can explain it for me?

A president tried to change the constitution of his country to allow him to serve longer than constitutionally permitted. The supreme court of that country rules that this was unconstitutional, and gave the order to detain the president. The congress then officially removed him from power and appointed a new person, someone from the former presidents own party, to be the interim president until elections could be held a few months later.

I'm trying to understand how this is any different than what should be done in ANY country (including the US) if a president violates the law or constitution of that country. Bush did it and I felt that this should have happened to him. If it did happen to him, would you have supported him? Why do you support Zelaya? Do you believe presidents should be above the law?

Have any of you asked yourselves why other countries and the UN immediately discredited this lawful act and declared it a 'coup'? Do you think that's right?

I'm really looking forward to an explanation.

[Traveling_Home]

1. If Bush didn't have ......

some tinfoil over his head then for sure the Israeli mercenaries got HIM with their radiation. Zelaya is probably already fried too.

Explains a lot

[timeforpeace]

12. Joey, this crowd ignores the facts they don't like. Their fantasies make for interesting reading tho

[ananda]

2. Zelaya was trying to serve the poor and working classes.

H u g e difference.

[joey93turbo]

4. Oh come on

That's like me stealing to give to the needy. It doesn't give me the right to break the law.

[DatManFromNawlins]

5. No he wasn't

He was trying to serve HIMSELF.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Were that even true, its not responsive to the question in the OP

[bemildred]

3. Zelaya was elected. Bush was selected. nt

[nashville_brook]

7. if you sincerely seek answers, rather than a rhetorical argument, then google is your friend:

http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html

Behind the Honduran Coup
Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal

By ALBERTO VALLENTE THORENSEN

In the classic Greek tragedy, Prometheus Bound, the playwright observes: “Of wrath’s disease wise words the healers are.” Shortly put, this story is about Prometheus, a titan who was punished by the almighty gods for having given humanity the capacity to create fire. This generated a conflict, which ended with Prometheus’ banishment and exile.

Currently, there is a tragedy being staged in the Central American republic Honduras. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity follows the events, as spectators of an outdated event in Latin America, which could set a very unfortunate undemocratic precedent for the region. In their rage, the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. This generated a constitutional conflict that resulted in president Zelaya’s banishment and exile. In this tragedy, words are once again the healers of enraged minds. If we, the spectators, are not attentive to these words, we risk succumbing intellectually, willfully accepting the facts presented by the angry coup-makers and Honduran gods of politics.

In this respect, media coverage of the recent military coup in Honduras is often misleading; even when it is presenting a critical standpoint towards the events. Concentrating on which words are used to characterize the policies conducted by President Zelaya might seem trivial at first sight. But any familiarity to the notion of ‘manufacturing of consent’, and how slight semantic tricks can be used to manipulate public opinion and support, is enough to realize the magnitude of certain omissions. Such oversights rely on the public’s widespread ignorance about some apparently minor legal intricacies in the Honduran Constitution.

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable, but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to ’s events.” However, President Zelaya cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

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.

It is fundamental that media channels do not fall into omissions that can delay the return of democracy to Honduras and can weaken the condemnation issued by strong institutions, like the United States government. It is also important that individuals are informed, so that they can have a critical attitude to media reports. Honduras needs democracy back now, and international society can play an important role in achieving this by not engaging in irresponsible oversimplifications.

Alberto Valiente Thoresen was born in San Salvador, El Salvador. He currently resides in Norway where he serves on the board of the Norwegian Solidarity Committee with Latin America. He wrote this column for Rebel Reports.

[Peace Patriot]

8. You've got your first "fact" all wrong, joey93turbo...

Here is the entire text of the resolution that Zelaya proposed for an ADVISORY vote of the people of Honduras:

"Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"
http://www.borev.net/2009/06/national_news_outlets_bring_th.html

The resolution was not only general--for a Constituent Assembly to be formed (not one word in it about term limits)--it did not have the force of law. It was simply an OPINION POLL. If it had been voted on and passed, it would have gone to the National Assembly (Congress) for discussion. The Honduran National Assembly is controlled by the "ten families" (the oligarchy), so the idea would likely have died there. But Zelaya--at the urging of labor unions, human rights groups, grass roots community groups and others--wanted it to at least be a point of discussion. Isn't it time--the point of political discussion would have been--to re-write the Constitution that was written by Reagan's henchmen in the 1980s, and which locks in too much power for the military and the rich?

Zelaya did NOT propose any action whatsoever on his term limit. It would have taken years for this Constituent Assembly idea to be implemented--years of discussion of all aspects the Constitution and the political power situation in Honduras. He was termed out. He could not have run in the November election, nor for years to come--IF the Constituent Assembly had proposed allowing the president TWO terms (the presidency is now restricted to ONE term, as a measure to insure the power of the military!) and IF this had ever reached a vote and had been passed.

If you had done any research on this, you would know that this proposal was a grass roots proposal. (See NarcoNews.) Zelaya agreed to champion it because he--born to the oligarchy--had begun to listen to the poor majority. They said, "We want to re-write this Constitution that has kept us the poorest population in Latin America." Zelaya had meanwhile raised the minimum wage, lowered the price of busfare to the poor, provided school lunches to poor children, and had undertaken other social justice measures that the rich hated him for. That--and his suggestion that the US military base at Soto Cano, Honduras, be converted to a commercial airport--got his home shot up by the Honduran military, which kidnapped him at gunpoint and flew him out of the country needless to say against his will (with a refueling stop at the US military base, by the way). Following this outrage, they declared martial law, and began arresting thousands of Hondurans who protested this coup, and using live ammunition on protestors, and beating peoples heads in, and selecting certain activists for 'exemplar' assassination.

The coup doesn't have a leg to stand on, legally, in their accusations against Zelaya. That is WHY they kidnapped him at gunpoint, and exiled him, and are repressing the Honduran people with curfews, beatings, arrests, roadblocks, home invasions, and probably torture and more deaths (that we don't know about yet--there have been about a dozen so far). This repression is because they have no case!

So, to answer your question--"What's the difference between Zelaya and Bush?"--there are two big FACTS that make the two cases as different as night is from day. 1) Zelaya did nothing illegal--he proposed an advisory vote on something the poor majority wanted to do-- and he did not harm a hair on anybody's head (compare and contrast with Bush); and 2) Zelaya improved the lives of the poor, in opposition to the rich elite (and Bush?).

A little research and you would not have asked such an uninformed question. I suggest that you visit the Latin American Forum right here at DU, where knowledgeable people can fill you in.

[Warpy]

9. What he did was issue a non binding ballot question

to the people about whether or not the constitution needed to be amended. Period.

Their constitution was forced on them by the Reagan administration and lacks any sort of mechanism for amendment of any type. It basically sets the Honduran oligarchy into stone in perpetuity.

The right wing over reacted in a characteristic manner. Had they left him in office and pursued a removal, they might have succeeded. However, they chose to kidnap him and eject him from the country and install a coup government.

The well do do and many of the educated support the coup, if the message boards are to believed. The peasants and the working class do not.

[lunamagica]

11. Zelaya's own party removed him. n/t

[lunamagica]

10. Funny you say that....

I've always noted the similarities and wondered about the double standard

Zelaya is the moronic son of a uber-wealthy crime family which in the seventies excecuted a bunch of people -including a priest who had gone to the town this family dominated to talk to the poor campesinos about their rights- and burried them in their own ranch

This man -who also reminds me of Bush due to his inability to coherently articulate a sentence in his native Spanish- would have never gone anywhere if not for the money and influence of his family. The Honduran Bush!

[UTUSN]

13. I Rec-ed to undo the UnReKK. So question to his supporters here:

If the so-called NON-binding referendum to CHANGE the term-limits deal is SO democratic:

How about making ALL of these deals --"changes to Constitutions" -- (like Huguito's) be for THE FUTURE, *not* for the CURRENT fool strutting the fool stage?!

The dude is a (anti-environmentalist) TIMBER HARVESTER. And now he's claiming TINFOIL to be gassed and starved, whatever.


Yeah yeah: Flame flame flame flame aWAY!1