Comments on: Canard d’Etat: Honduras and the U.S. Press

By: Dave Cearley

Dave Cearley — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:08:21 +0000

Your article ignores an important detail. The ballots for the referendum were printed and provided by Chavez. Zalaya clearly stated his desire to become president again, and I don’t believe he had the authority to call for a constitutional convention on his own. Also missing is that the military acted on the orders of the supreme court, who did believe Zayala had overstepped his bounds. Fear of a dictatorship is so strong in Honduras that merely expressing the desire to violate the current constitution results in loss of citizenship. That you actually believe a populist leader was merely trying to determine the desire of voters to change the constitution and not to subvert it marks you as a niave idealist. How about your educated? guess of the political cost of that “free” oil and Cuban doctors? Give me a break and go back to your commune.

By: Héctor Estrada

Héctor Estrada — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:20:06 +0000

Finally@Kirk Nielsen GREAT ARTICLE ABOUT THE PSEUDO-JOURNALISM THAT PLAGUES THE WORLD CORPORATE MEDIA.When you mention that Zelaya made the mistake of not clarifying his intentions acted against himself. There is one fact that you might be missing which is that the most of the US media outlets that researched cite the local media which has worked actively to create an atmosphere that staging the coup was acceptable (during 12 months before the coup) and covering up the truth and lying to the whole world, literally, after June 28th. These pro-coup corporate media never reported exactly what Zelaya stated but misreported confusing and as you mention in your article placing assumptions as facts. There were two media outlets that covered the executive version of the non bidding referendum by the President, “Poder Ciudadano” the presidential newspaper, and Poder Ciudadano TV Channel, Number 8. The newspaper has now disappeared and the channel is only broadcasting propaganda against the ALBA leaders.Take a look as these videos:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhSnKctkVQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxg-pI1MzV8In fact, the, then soon to be, golpistas argued that Zelaya that the only way to convene a constituent assembly was thru a coup d’état. They blame him for trying to stage a coup to himself. NOW, I’m sorry to tell the coup apologists that THEY, THESELVES, have place more arguments to convene the assembly given the FACT that the RULE OF LAW has collapsed in the country.http://www.heraldohn.com/Pa%C3%ADs/Ediciones/2009/05/26/Noticias/Convocar-a-Constituyente-es-dar-golpe-de-EstadoGreeting from Honduras, where I write this comment while I massage my calves after the a police beating for protesting peacefully against the coup!http://www.flickr.com/photos/ojoindependiente/sets/72157622456461040/

By: Héctor Estrada

Héctor Estrada — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:04:18 +0000

@Anonymous UserIf you can actually find in the more than 80 pages file the Supreme Court has filed against The CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF HONDURAS, MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, a charge for seeking the reelection or trying to remove the presidential term limits, I might give you a prize. But, because I know you’ll never find it, I’ll give you the file for you to enjoy:http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/87E2BFFC-AF4D-44EA-BFC5-D93730D8D81C/2413/ExpedienteJudicial1.pdf

By: Héctor Estrada

Héctor Estrada — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:02:34 +0000

@teka KaraI’m sorry to tell you that the Supreme Court have been found to be explicitly involved in the collusion of the biggest institutions of the government, outside the executive branch radius, since all of them where appointed the corrupted, golpista Roberto Micheletti. In addition to this, the decree that the National Congress used to remove Zelaya from office is flawed since the tries to equal/interpret “disprove” administrative conduct to “removing” from office because “we don’t like you” (Art. 205, numeral 20). Come on, the Congress is trying to bend the laws of physics the Supreme Court is trying to hold their impossible thesis. Finally, long after the coup, the aforementioned golpista argument, these criminals are saying that according to the constitutional Art. 205, numeral 1, the Congress has the attribution to interpret the law. However, there is a minute problem. In 2003, the previous Supreme Court justices ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Congress to interpret laws.How about you read this other article:http://quotha.net/node/384Here the 2003 Court’s ruling:http://quotha.net/docs/honduras/sentencia-7-de-mayo-de-2003.pdfYou'd like to know that Ramón Custodio López the one who filed the Recurso de Incostitucionalidad!

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:10:44 +0000

The previous anonymous user makes several factual errors. Convening a constitutional assembly is not in itself prohibited by Articles 373, 374, 375; the assembly could have the power to modify provisions in the Honduran constitution that are not part of the “articulos petreos” (articles set in stone). Nor was President Zelaya organizing a binding referenedum; it was a non-binding survey, which is within the legal competency of the national statistics office. Moreover, there is a law specifically authorizing the holding of such non-binding surveys. President Zelaya did not ignore the prohibition on removing term limits; in fact, he explicitly abided by it.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:29:16 +0000

Great article, thanks. Can you manage to get a copy of this sent to Congressman Connie Mack? Think he needs it!

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:08:15 +0000

#1: The Honduran constitution prohibits changing term limits or holding a second term (two different Articles). Period. Zelaya’s desire to run in 2012 seems to prove the accusations against him. But even facilitating multiple terms for someone else would be unconstitutional.#2: The case brought against the referendum was based on Articles 373(legal method of constitutional change), 374(enumerating inviolate Articles including 373), and 375(specifically prohibiting the dissolution of the constitution). The argument: a constitutional assembly is a constitutionally invalid means to change the constitution (373); that the act dissolving the constitution would violate Article 375; and dissolving the constitution eliminates ALL articles protected under 374. The “check box question” promoted an illegal act. It would be equally improper to hold a referendum asking if the people supported purging the population of an ethnic group.Constitutional order requires the Executive to defer to the Judiciary in interpreting the law. In this case, adhering the injunction prohibiting the plebiscite until the issue could be tried in court. This is where Zelaya committed treason. When the judiciary handed down a judgment he disagreed with, Zelaya claimed the power to overrule the supreme court. With that act Zelaya placed himself ABOVE the law and interrupted the legal constitutional order of Honduras. Zelaya conducted a presidential coup.Zelaya had refused to provide a budget for 2009 (a constitutional requirement of his office) which left the government unable to enact programs helping the poor – while he dolled out the resources provided by Chavez. By this mechanism he increased personal power while creating dissatisfaction with government services among his constituents. He also bypassed the electoral tribunal making his referendum illegal. Chavez produced the balloting materials that were flown in to Honduras on June 24. The whole thing was a Chavez sponsored coup.

By: teka Kara

teka Kara — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:46:34 +0000

15-0, though never mentioned in the article, trumps all the evidence in the article. The Supreme Court knew what was going on, and protected democracy in Honduras by their 15-0 ruling. Perhaps you prefer the analysis of someone that is more Liberal. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry, who no one describes as conservative, had this to say in an official statement to the OAS on June 26th:“America values its longstanding partnership with Honduras, but a push to rewrite the constitution over the objections of Honduras’s top court, legislature, attorney general, and military is deeply disturbing.”Perhaps you should read the 15-0 ruling of the Supreme Court. It would be much more informative than a 1300 word article that would ignore 15-0 much like this article. Perhaps you could ask Zelaya about 15-0, ask him how 15-0 relates to the rule of law, and ask him why he and his supporters always cower from 15-0.Viva Honduras! Viva 15-0!