Should Gates and Clinton be forced out over Honduras coup?

The U.S. is sending diplomats to Honduras in an attempt
to save a power-sharing pact between deposed president Manuel Zelaya and the government of Roberto Micheletti ahead of Nov. 29 elections. This is just the latest in a series of mixed signals the U.S. has sent the Latin American nation since Zelaya was forced out in a June coup.
RT commentator Wayne Madsen says maybe the inconsistency is the fault
of U.S. officials.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• honduras
• manuel zelaya
• roberto micheletti
• logan act
• obama administration
• robert gates
• jim demint
• john mccainbrazil wayne madsen
• dina gusovsky
• rt
• russia today

[latinchico22]

gees i school u in every fucking time now u want to talk here i'll make your life a living hell til u fucking give up THIS CONSTITUTION WAS MADE DURING THE CIVIL WARS IN LATIN AMERICA!!! !GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING BRAIN , I ALREADY TOLD U THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT WANT THE CONSTITUTION CHANGED PLEASE WHY DON'T U FUCKING SHOW ME TELL ME WHERE ZELAYA HAS SAID HE WAS GOING TO EXTEND HIS TERM BESIDES GETTING IT FROM FOX NEWS AND OTHER RIGHT WINGERS FROM HONDURAS

[Nitrorus]

>Common like they are not all together in this. The US don't Zelaya to come back because he doesn't play the game of the corporations.

2 aspects:

1. Hohduras has US airfoce base Soto Kano on its territory. Officers school for H. army is placed here - on the base territory. It means officers of H. army have their education on the US territory. + annual maneuvers and trainings of H. army here.

2. Honduras was one of the countries, which provides new regional currency - sucre.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Now:If Z had behaved like this in fact,instead of just in theory,could he then have legitimately remained in power?Well:he WAS elected until 27 Jan. 2010! After that....life goes on!

If he had tried to impose a new constitution as illegitimately as in 1982(Even I can write a new Honduran constitution on this laptop),I'd imagine he'd be the laughingstock of democrats everywhere, like Vasquez/Micheletti[...] are today.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[cont]:I'm exaggerating,but something like this?!Ok: to me this involves a very huge leap:there is no way anyone,either Zelaya in theory or the golpistas in practice, could sustain this with a straight face. One thing is to run a referendum on a new, democratically supported constitution. Another, very different one indeed is to organise the drawing up of this constitution like in 1982, i.e. entirely undemocratically. The thing is: one of these things is current history, the other speculation.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Waiddaminit! I reread your post and I realise:You are suggesting that in the(max.)2 months between the results of the Nov.29 2009election and 27Jan 2010, Z might have said:"Right:you said you wanted a new constitution:I just happened to write one last night:here it is; it says I am Emperor for life"..[cont]

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

[-cont]: Now, according to what I got from what you said,this constituent assembly is somehow organised undemocratically, it draws up the constitution w/out consulting the population,in favour of some narrow power interests (in other words: the way the current constitution came about). At this point Z still isn't in power because the const. still says 1 term only, so it ain't him anyway.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

Let's examine this: There is a non-binding referendum. People vote "Yes" to a constituent assembly, up to this point todo bien, right?

Now, after this, things get tricky: a process follows whereby the "yes" translates into political action -(I would imagine the pro-constituent assembly movement could demonstrate with the added legitimacy to the demand given by the poll, this might have effects, etc.)someone, either Lobo or the following president organises a constituent assembly one day[cont-]

[EP4LFC]

(cont: ...or Nov29") then he would have used the pueblo's approval to re write anything he wanted. No one knows how they were gonna select the people for the asamblea. **I would have been fine w/ the Cuarta if he had been specific!!!** i.e. "modify X article" or "add X article"

So to answer your question, by getting a go ahead from the pueblo to rewrite the const., in no specific way, he would have been given the backing to rewrite the parts which are unmodifiable such as term limits.

[EP4LFC]

Yes, I have heard that argument and I don't find it very convincing because if term limits were scrapped then Zelaya would have been able to run against whoever who won this one (as u said, probably Lobo - which would be perfect cuz then Z could run under the Liberales). The problem would still remain.

Also, the main problem that w/ the ref is that it was extremely unspecific. It was a mask which gave Z's actions a democratic facade. If the pueblo had voted yes (either June 28 or Nov29)

[rbonilla18]

A este comemierda ojala que lo maten.

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

["Uribismo" with an "i" of course -Urubu is a particularly disgusting scavenging bird seen in Brazil -but at least it cannot be accused of supporting paramilitary death squads!) "El innombrable", Argentinean president from the 1990s also changed the constitution so he could be re-elected. Although he was execrably popular, I could swear he didn't put it to popular vote either. -cierro el paréntesis]

[NicosNicosNicosNicos]

I mean: you are familiar with the argument that the ref. regarded a call for a constituyente on Nov 29, simultaneous with the election of a new president -probably Lobo?- who would have been sworn in, making the call for a constituyente (if approved by voters) more prominent in the political arena, (despite the 1982 constitutions' "locks" against reform). One can claim Z wanted to practice "Urubismo" (Uribe did not put term-limit extensions to popular vote btw), but one could claim anything,no?