Back to the topic at hand, I am disappointed but not surprised at the Obama administration’s appalling behavior in this case. What is more amazing is that, apparently with the exception of Colombia’s Uribe, Obama’s opinions are shared by pretty much every other leader. Where are the defenders of the people against ever more powerful autocrats a la Chavez?

Over at the Miami Herald, an opinion piece on what happened in Honduras that Obama, Hillary, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States should read before making pronouncements The greatest tourist attraction in Central America has alw…

It says that he is supposed to lose his citizenship if he does something like he did. Maybe they deport those in their country who are not citizens.

1. He committed a crime, that, by their constitution, costs his him citizenship.
2. The Supreme Court and Congress unanimously invoke this clause.
3. The Army, at their orders, picks him up.
4. Then, according to their (I’m assuming) policy, they deport him.

It all seems logical to me. :) :) :)

http://www.laprensahn.com/index.php/Ediciones/2009/07/01/Noticias/Uribe-defiende-principio-de-la-no-intervencion

Says the principal of non-intervention is the one that needs to guide the actions of all nations with regards to the Honduran situation. Basically says that this is a Honduran internal matter and all outside actors need to butt out

El presidente de Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, defendió este martes el principio de la “no intervención” externa ante la crisis política en Honduras.

“El respeto a la no intervención debe ser a todas las horas, frente a todos los casos, no puede ser sesgado, no puede ser en este caso no intervención, en este caso sí intervención”, dijo Uribe a la prensa tras un discurso en el Centro Woodrow Wilson, un instituto de estudios.

http://www.laprensahn.com/index.php/Ediciones/2009/07/01/Noticias/Uribe-defiende-principio-de-la-no-intervencion

Uribe has more guts in his pinky than Obama, the supposed, leader of the free world.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État.

So, this ain’t no coup. The legislative and judicial branches asked the military, which is the only organization capable of doing the job, to remove Zelaya. The reason was his defiance of Honduran constitutional provisions; the constitution required his removal for violating those provisions. This means there was a legal basis for the action under Honduran law. It also means that Messiah & Co. failed to read the applicable laws of Honduras before shooting off their mouths. Of course, they don’t have much use for the US Constitution, so I can imagine how little regard they have for a foreign one…

Obama to go

Can we have the address for the Honduran Army,we may have
a job for them here very shortly.

easyone on June 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM

+100

Knowing that as we do, the laws broken etc why are Obama/Clinton still supporting Zelaya and his attempted installation of Chavez lite.

The only sane response has to be WTF!

This is bad – and holds the potential to get much, much worse. The last president that even approached this level of dysfunction was James Earl Carter, and he gave the world the Iranian theocracy. I do not know what Obama’s legacy will be, but I fully expect it to be far worse.

Key West Reader on June 30, 2009 at 4:51 PM

From your mouth to God’s ear!

FloatingRock on June 30, 2009 at 5:50 PM

We should just be happy that Ed didn’t try to claim that the Hondurans violated posse comitatus.

That’s okay, the Spanish courts will indict and try all the Hondurans they feel violated Galactic Law.

this is why the argument over coup/non-coup misses the point. The proper process for removing a head of state can’t include having the army dump him outside the border

Says you….

Yes, its been introduced before, by the same dude, but I’ve not had a reason to fear it would actually come to pass before now.

I would hope our reps would side with the people should this situation ever arrise here, but I think “We the people” are on our own.

Not a well thought out provision of their constitution, as it supposes some automatic process, instead of descibing a process…

Romeo13 on June 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I have not read the Honduran constitution, but isn’t it likely that their supreme court get to make the determination as to whether the president in fact attempted re-election (or other circumvention of the constitutional term limit provision) and that that court procedure is the due process?

I think he’s watching this to see how Americans react- for future reference.

Barack Obama gave a knee-jerk reaction without bothering to account for the facts on the ground.

Mao Obmama believes in an all powerful executive, not in constitutions, nor liberty, nor legislatures unless they do whatever he wants, nor in courts unless they do whatever he wants, nor in a military unless they do whatever he wants.

The Miami Herald all but calls Obama and Hillary Clinton “johnny-come-latelies” to the defense of democracy in Honduras. Where was their outrage over Zelaya’s actions that led to his removal?

Mao Obmama was outraged that his kindred spirit Zelaya was removed.