[ExI] honduras presidential removal
painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Jul 27 22:44:53 UTC 2009
spike ha scritto:
>> 2009/7/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> the military
>>> "did not use legal means to remove the president..." which
>> is subtly
>>> different from "...used illegal means to remove the president..."
>> When has the military ever "legally" removed a president?...
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Possibly last month. I don't know enough about the Honduras
> constitution or the actions of their supreme court to know for sure.
> I notice our government is leaving itself some wiggle room in case it
> turns out Zelaya really did defy the SCOH. The lamestream media here
> have reported it both ways: the Honduran military and the Zelaya did
> illegal actions. Time will tell.
After a time, I found this article of Roberto Michieletti
The Path Forward for Honduras
Zelaya’s removal from office was a triumph for the rule of law.
> One of America’s most loyal Latin American allies—Honduras—has been
> in the midst of a constitutional crisis that threatens its democracy.
> Sadly, key undisputed facts regarding the crisis have often been
> ignored by America’s leaders, at least during the earliest days of
> the crisis.
> In recent days, the rhetoric from allies of former President Manuel
> Zelaya has also dominated media reporting in the U.S. The worst
> distortion is the repetition of the false statement that Mr. Zelaya
> was removed from office by the military and for being a “reformer.”
> The truth is that he was removed by a democratically elected civilian
> government because the independent judicial and legislative branches
> of our government found that he had violated our laws and
> Let’s review some fundamental facts that cannot be disputed:
> • The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted
> illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it
> ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the
> arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate
> agency to do so under Honduran law.
> • Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of
> Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya
> propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the
> unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s
> own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of
> Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.
> • The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing
> Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s
> Liberal Party.
> • Independent government and religious leaders and
> institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the
> Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman,
> four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential
> candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s
> Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.
> • The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president
> who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is
> automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no
> express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran
> constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed
> that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal
> referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a
> matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of
> • Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally
> withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of
> • A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to
> overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been
> shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.
> • I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of
> succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began
> so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an
> entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely
> civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered
> by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr.
> Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.
> Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the
> evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the
> situation could have been handled differently. But it is also
> necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear
> of Mr. Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage
> in mob-led violence.
> The way forward is to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. He
> is proposing ways to ensure that Mr. Zelaya complies with Honduras’s
> laws and its constitution and allows the people of Honduras to elect
> a new president in the regularly scheduled Nov. 29 elections (or
> perhaps earlier, if the date is moved up as President Arias has
> suggested and as Honduran law allows).
> If all parties reach agreement to allow Mr. Zelaya to return to
> Honduras—a big “if”—we believe that he cannot be trusted to comply
> with the law and therefore it is our position that he must be
> prosecuted with full due process.
> President Arias’s proposal for a moratorium on prosecution of all
> parties may be considered, but our Supreme Court has indicated that
> such a proposal presents serious legal problems under our
> Like America, our constitutional democracy has three co-equal and
> independent branches of government—a fact that Mr. Zelaya ignored
> when he openly defied the positions of both the Supreme Court and
> Congress. But we are ready to continue discussions once the Supreme
> Court, the attorney general and Congress analyze President Arias’s
> proposal. That proposal has been turned over to them so that they can
> review provisions that impact their legal authority. Once we know
> their legal positions we will proceed accordingly.
> The Honduran people must have confidence that their Congress is a
> co-equal branch of government. They must be assured that the rule of
> law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president, and that
> their Supreme Court’s orders will not be dismissed and swept aside by
> other nations as inconvenient obstacles.
> Meanwhile, the other elements of the Arias proposal, especially the
> establishment of a Truth Commission to make findings of fact and
> international enforcement mechanisms to ensure Mr. Zelaya complies
> with the agreement, are worthy of serious consideration.
> Mr. Zelaya’s irresponsible attempt on Friday afternoon to cross the
> border into Honduras before President Arias has obtained agreement
> from all parties—an attempt that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
> Clinton appropriately described as “reckless”—was just another
> example of why Mr. Zelaya cannot be trusted to keep his word.
> Regardless of what happens, the worst thing the U.S. can do is to
> impose economic sanctions that would primarily hurt the poorest
> people in Honduras. Rather than impose sanctions, the U.S. should
> continue the wise policies of Mrs. Clinton. She is supporting
> President Arias’s efforts to mediate the issues. The goal is a
> peaceful solution that is consistent with Honduran law in a civil
> society where even the president is not above the law.
> Mr. Micheletti, previously the president of the Honduran Congress,
> became president of Honduras upon the departure of Manuel Zelaya. He
> is a member of the Liberal Party, the same party as Mr. Zelaya.
More information about the extropy-chat