PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's Honduras Obsession



LineDoggie
09-21-2009, 01:06 PM
Hillary's Honduras Obsession

The U.S. is trying to force the country to violate its constitution


"The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."
—Congressional Research Service, August 2009


Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president's proclamations.



Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.



Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.



Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."
But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?



Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.
It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.



Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.



Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation's founding. Many readers have written that they are "ashamed" of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, "How can I help Honduras?" A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?



In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy. Legal scholars are clear on this. "Judicial independence is a central component of any democracy and is crucial to separation of powers, the rule of law and human rights," writes Ahron Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and a prominent legal scholar, in his compelling 2006 book, "The Judge in a Democracy."



"The purpose of the separation of powers is to strengthen freedom and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one government actor in a manner likely to harm the freedom of the individual," Mr. Barak explains—almost as if he is writing about Honduras.



He also warns prophetically about the Chávez style of democracy that has destroyed Venezuela and that Hondurans say they were trying to avoid in their own country. "Democracy is entitled to defend itself from those who seek to use it in order to destroy its very existence," he writes. Americans ought to ask themselves why the Obama administration doesn't seem to agree.



Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/aboutcrs.html
The Congressional Research Service is a public policy research arm of the US Congress.




This pretty much exposes the sham of US outrage over the "Military Coup"

ALBA660
09-21-2009, 01:15 PM
Where are the US carriers?

Invisigoth
09-21-2009, 01:51 PM
Yes because U.S. government involvement in other countries' internal affairs is a complete novelty brought on by the Obama administration and it's lead harpy Hillary. :)

LineDoggie
09-21-2009, 02:37 PM
Yes because U.S. government involvement in other countries' internal affairs is a complete novelty brought on by the Obama administration and it's lead harpy Hillary. :)And I'm sure you live somewhere that has Never interfered either, right sparky?

The point(not on your pickelhaube) is that the Congress's research arm even says this is wrong.


"Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.

Mu-Meson
09-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Linedoggie: Hillary's motto is: "I reject your reality, and substitute my own". Facts and reason have no relevance nor importance there.

I just hope Honduras can hold on long enough for the rest of what would have been Zelaya's term to run down, then hopefully, it will blow over. In a fairer world, when the Republicans get back in power, they will reward this plucky democracy for its courage, and apologize for this behaviour.

Chulo
09-21-2009, 03:22 PM
Linedoggie: Hillary's motto is: "I reject your reality, and substitute my own". Facts and reason have no relevance nor importance there.
.
How much of this is Hillary's position as to Obama's? He is her boss

Strongie
09-21-2009, 03:25 PM
And I'm sure you live somewhere that has Never interfered either, right sparky?

The point(not on your pickelhaube) is that the Congress's research arm even says this is wrong.


"Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.


Yeah, great idea, let's support military backed coups in Latin America, it worked out so well in the 80-s. Now the president in Colombia has managed to get support from the senate to change the constitution in order to run for a third turn. The whole place is starting to look like Africa.

MaverickCowboy
09-21-2009, 03:27 PM
what? where are the liberals screaming American Imperialism?

b0sco
09-21-2009, 04:05 PM
what? where are the liberals screaming American Imperialism?

http://i33.tinypic.com/1e0t1k.jpg

LineDoggie
09-21-2009, 04:18 PM
Yeah, great idea, let's support military backed coups in Latin America, it worked out so well in the 80-s. Now the president in Colombia has managed to get support from the senate to change the constitution in order to run for a third turn. The whole place is starting to look like Africa. Military Backed? The Honduran Supreme Court ordered the Military to remove Zelaya in accordance with its constitution. You seriouslly think the Military Obeying the civilian Judicial & Legislative leadership in accordance with their Constitution and laws is Bad? This wasnt some rogue cabal of Colonels deciding on their own, Like Haiti in 91, Venezuela with Hugo in 92.....

Or is it you dont like it when Coups arent putting the left in power?

vryhpyammoadded
09-21-2009, 04:37 PM
This Honduran thing has got to be the most bizarre US diplomatic turnabouts I’ve ever seen. So, the US government now condones big government tyranny, centralized executive control, corruption, and anti democratic, behavior? What’s next, Marxists openly working in our government, US troops shooting down allied aircraft?

The world is turning upside down.

budgie
09-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Oh Jesus they had a coup for crap's sake. A coup. Are the American left and right going to take sides over Latin American coups d'etat now? All coup leaders consider themselves justified in ousting a government they proclaim 'unconstitutional' and within a few years, they violate enough rules that it becomes their turn. Will that be Hillary's fault too?

Or is there another agenda in this whining...the insidious idea that a military overthrow, even in a constitutional democracy can be justified. Is this just a way to sneak that kind of talk onto the mp.net table vis-a-vis the Right's hatred of their current 'socialist' president?

Elbs
09-21-2009, 09:09 PM
What on gods green earth does Honduras have to do with the right being mad at Obama?

Like Linedoggie pointed out... it was an internal matter which the court ordered the military to resolve. Of course, if Hugo Chavez was threatening to send his Bolivarian Revolutionary troops there, it must have been a great right-wing crime.

LineDoggie
09-21-2009, 09:10 PM
Guess you couldnt be bothered to read where the US Congress's research arm (Non Partisan) came to the conclusion the action was Legal according to Honduran Laws. I know it was subtley mentioned, but it is there in the article. try reading it.

Kilimunati
09-21-2009, 09:17 PM
What on gods green earth does Honduras have to do with the right being mad at Obama?

Like Linedoggie pointed out... it was an internal matter which the court ordered the military to resolve. Of course, if Hugo Chavez was threatening to send his Bolivarian Revolutionary troops there, it must have been a great right-wing crime.

You miss the point....US have always gone by principle on the issue of Military Coupes. What happened in Hunduras was coupe (however you folks want to justify it). If US back this action, then it will be difficult to stand on principle against other coupes when they happen. My Brother was working in Hunduras until the unrest, he 'll tell you that both sides uses the constitution to justify their actions, but however you dissect it, it was a coupe and it was important that the US took the line that it did.

Elbs
09-21-2009, 09:20 PM
You miss the point....US have always gone by principle on the issue of Military Coupes. What happened in Hunduras was coupe (however you folks want to justify it). If US back this action, then it will be difficult to stand on principle against other coupes when they happen. My Brother was working in Hunduras until the unrest, he 'll tell you that both sides uses the constitution to justify their actions, but however you dissect it, it was a coupe and it was important that the US took the line that it did.

Thanks for the lecture homes.

Zarak
09-21-2009, 09:21 PM
The general election, which includes the Presidential election, is November 29th. If they're so upset about the evil interim government, how hard is it to wait two months?

LineDoggie
09-21-2009, 09:52 PM
You miss the point....US have always gone by principle on the issue of Military Coupes. What happened in Hunduras was coupe (however you folks want to justify it). If US back this action, then it will be difficult to stand on principle against other coupes when they happen. My Brother was working in Hunduras until the unrest, he 'll tell you that both sides uses the constitution to justify their actions, but however you dissect it, it was a coupe and it was important that the US took the line that it did. Then by that Logic, Chavez staged a Failed Coup in 92 and we deal with him now.

Norodom Sinhanouk in Cambodia 93 (and then he was replaced)
Aristide in Haiti 91
Musharaff in Pakistan 99
hundreds of others the US deals with every day

this is selective to appease the Left faction of the US and Hugo and Fidel (which the irony of them complaining is delicious)

Kilimunati
09-21-2009, 10:22 PM
Then by that Logic, Chavez staged a Failed Coup in 92 and we deal with him now.

Norodom Sinhanouk in Cambodia 93 (and then he was replaced)
Aristide in Haiti 91
Musharaff in Pakistan 99
hundreds of others the US deals with every day

this is selective to appease the Left faction of the US and Hugo and Fidel (which the irony of them complaining is delicious)

As always, everything is either left or right with you. I won't get into claims and counter claims with you. Yes Chavez led a failed coup and went to jail for it in Venezuela. He won an election to become president. So he’s an elected president. Aristide also won election in '91; he didn't get in power by coupe like you suggest. As for Musharaff, you should ask Clinton about that. Bush dealt with him with no qualms so I don't see where you get you ridiculous theory of a leftist agenda.

TheSteve
09-22-2009, 12:10 AM
this is selective to appease the Left faction of the US and Hugo and Fidel (which the irony of them complaining is delicious)
What about everyone other country and countless NGOs that aren't recognizing the government installed by the coup? All their left factions?

The idea that we aren't supporting this coup because he is a leftists is absurd, seeing that we have quite a long history of expelling any leaders, democratically elected or not.

LineDoggie
09-22-2009, 12:14 AM
Bet you didnt even read the article. The CRS says it was legal and they are Congress's research arm.

TheSteve
09-22-2009, 02:26 AM
Bet you didnt even read the article. The CRS says it was legal and they are Congress's research arm.
No, I didn't read the OPINION piece (Something called Hillary s Obsession, no thanks). I did, however, follow your link to the CRS and have read plenty about the situation in Hondurans (Zelaya just returned home, hanging out in the Brazilian Embassy). I don't disagree with what the CRS reported.

But, I think the idea that the United States doesn't support the military action because of sympathies for leftists is ****ing absurd. I mean really, give me a break. Not one other country has recognized the temporary government.

budgie
09-22-2009, 07:15 AM
No, I didn't read the OPINION piece (Something called Hillary s Obsession, no thanks). I did, however, follow your link to the CRS and have read plenty about the situation in Hondurans (Zelaya just returned home, hanging out in the Brazilian Embassy). I don't disagree with what the CRS reported.

But, I think the idea that the United States doesn't support the military action because of sympathies for leftists is ****ing absurd. I mean really, give me a break. Not one other country has recognized the temporary government.

Ditto. So what if the Honduras 'constitution' makes provision for coups d'etat? Coups for crissakes. I'm sure the right-wingers only wished there was something similar in the US.

brainplay
09-22-2009, 09:18 AM
What happened in Hunduras was coupe (however you folks want to justify it).


Ok so Supreme Court declares Pres. unfit. Not a few members, not recently installed members (actually very long standing members), and not under military coercion. Pres. has a number of loyal bodyguards (who are apparently having some fun messing up property now). How do you remove him from power? How do you remove a leader from power who has been declared unfit/defrocked/ex'ed from power without it being a coup?

What if Presidents Bush or Clinton had been impeached but had some nice extremist militias at their beck and call. How do you take him down? Secret Service is refusing to take part as they are still former Presidents with protection rights. Who do you send? SWAT teams? Marine guards? How does that look in the media?

This isn't Zimbabwe we're talking about here.

Universals
09-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Ok so Supreme Court declares Pres. unfit. Not a few members, not recently installed members (actually very long standing members), and not under military coercion. Pres. has a number of loyal bodyguards (who are apparently having some fun messing up property now). How do you remove him from power? How do you remove a leader from power who has been declared unfit/defrocked/ex'ed from power without it being a coup?

What if Presidents Bush or Clinton had been impeached but had some nice extremist militias at their beck and call. How do you take him down? Secret Service is refusing to take part as they are still former Presidents with protection rights. Who do you send? SWAT teams? Marine guards? How does that look in the media?

This isn't Zimbabwe we're talking about here.

You make absolutely no sense. He's supporters are now extremists militias?
No point even discussing anything here. Since you guys want to see see everything from the left vs right prism.

brainplay
09-22-2009, 03:37 PM
You make absolutely no sense. He's supporters are now extremists militias?
No point even discussing anything here. Since you guys want to see see everything from the left vs right prism.

Did I say there were? Nope, I just used those as an example because according to left/right thinking here in the US only those would defend either of those Presidents.

His supporters mean nothing. If he broke the law then he broke the law. How do you remove a disposed President/PM/Dear Leader from power when he has a strong following without it being called a coup? Take note that Honduras does NOT have an impeachment clause like the US, the act that sparked this was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, and the Honduras Congress condemned the attempted referendum.