Honduras Defends Its Democracy

SmarterThanYou said:
you have to look at it in your own terms, of how your own government handles these issues. Here in the US, if Bush were to try to force something like that, the congress and senate would have to impeach him, then the USSC would have to order the course of action. Not too dissimilar from Honduras at this point.
Click to expand...

But would the army have then taken it upon itself to pick Mr Bush up and throw him out of a plane in Costa Rica? (Yes, i know that does sound quite appealing but stop thinking about it now people. It is over now)

Removing someone from office is one thing but the use of the army in a region beset by a long history of military intervention in politics is, i can't help thinking, a somewhat regressive step.
 
charver said:
I find it quite hard to get exercised over Honduras anyway.

However, for it to be beyond the realms of possibility that a State could adopt another course of action, other than execution or kidnapping and deportation, strikes me as a little limited, no?
Click to expand...
What other action? Imprisonment? It seems there were more than one choice, but the only one you think would have been worth it would be to let him do whatever he pleased and stand by meekly accepting it. It's bad that it happened, I agree. But some responsibility has to lie with the person who refused to follow the constitution he was elected to uphold and it appears as if Hondurans decided that it was unacceptable to continue letting him have his way. It seems they showed restraint. Instead of killing him, etc, they simply removed him from office and let him go to an American Protectorate.
 
Damocles said:
What other action? Imprisonment? It seems there were more than one choice, but the only one you think would have been worth it would be to let him do whatever he pleased and stand by meekly accepting it. It's bad that it happened, I agree. But some responsibility has to lie with the person who refused to follow the constitution he was elected to uphold and it appears as if Hondurans decided that it was unacceptable to continue letting him have his way. It seems they showed restraint. Instead of killing him, etc, they simply removed him from office and let him go to an American Protectorate.
Click to expand...

No they didn't "simply remove him and let him go to an American protectorate" they kidnapped and deported him.

Now if they're so concerned about constitutionality then how does that figure in the Honduras constitution?
 
charver said:
But would the army have then taken it upon itself to pick Mr Bush up and throw him out of a plane in Costa Rica? (Yes, i know that does sound quite appealing but stop thinking about it now people. It is over now)

Removing someone from office is one thing but the use of the army in a region beset by a long history of military intervention in politics is, i can't help thinking, a somewhat regressive step.
Click to expand...
What other step would have successfully removed him?

And I agree, if the military decides that Corporal Johnson needs to lead the nation now and refuses to hold elections, this is bad. If they hold elections and then whoever wins is installed I can see that what they have done may have been patriotic rather than traitorous or regressive.
 
Damocles said:
Bad that it had to happen, and very bad if they do not install the newly elected President at the next election. What would we have supported if Bush decided to continue in office regardless of the Constitution? I know I would support his forced removal at that point.
Click to expand...
And the newly installed president has already said he will serve only through January 27, 2010 which is the end of the existing term
 
SmarterThanYou said:
again, what the displaced 'president' tried to do was illegal according to their constitution, so the rest of their government did what was legally required, why is that wrong?
Click to expand...

He attempted to amend, alter, change, modify their constitution by legal means .. no differently than amending the US Constitution.

How many US presidents are kidnapped and escorted out of the country for their attempts to amend our constitution?

There is NO justification for the coup other than right-wing fears the political drift in their country. NO nation stands with this coup.
 
charver said:
No they didn't "simply remove him and let him go to an American protectorate" they kidnapped and deported him.

Now if they're so concerned about constitutionality then how does that figure in the Honduras constitution?
Click to expand...
You say tomato, I say ta mah toe...

Seriously, this is getting repetitive. How do you propose they remove an executive that refuses to go?
 
blackascoal said:
Its called an election.
Click to expand...
Except he was attempting to force an issue unconstitutionally and remain in office.

That wouldn't work, he wasn't leaving. Instead they forced him to follow the constitution. As I said, what would you and I have supported if Bush decided he wasn't going to leave? I'm betting he wouldn't be living in Costa Rica.
 
blackascoal said:
He attempted to amend, alter, change, modify their constitution by legal means .. no differently than amending the US Constitution.

How many US presidents are kidnapped and escorted out of the country for their attempts to amend our constitution?

There is NO justification for the coup other than right-wing fears the political drift in their country. NO nation stands with this coup.
Click to expand...

no he did not, his referendum was illegal, his order to force the military to hand out pamphlets was illegal....that is why he fired the top general because he refused to carry out the illegal order
 
Damocles said:
What other step would have successfully removed him?

And I agree, if the military decides that Corporal Johnson needs to lead the nation now and refuses to hold elections, this is bad. If they hold elections and then whoever wins is installed I can see that what they have done may have been patriotic rather than traitorous or regressive.
Click to expand...

From what i can gather (man this Honduras stuff is like crack cocaine) he had already lost support of the army, parliament and most of the people in the country.

With little control on the actual levers of power what was to stop a couple of chaps in suits from the police pitching up at the Presidential abode, putting his stuff in a couple of boxes and turfing him out on the street?

Then bring forward elections without his name on the ballot.

Hows about that? No need for the kidnapping and deporting bit, you see?
 
Damocles said:
Except he was attempting to force an issue unconstitutionally and remain in office.

That wouldn't work, he wasn't leaving.
Click to expand...

If his citizens voted to remove term limits, then he should stay in office as long as he's elected.

The military NEVER gets to decide.
 
blackascoal said:
He attempted to amend, alter, change, modify their constitution by legal means .. no differently than amending the US Constitution.

How many US presidents are kidnapped and escorted out of the country for their attempts to amend our constitution?

There is NO justification for the coup other than right-wing fears the political drift in their country. NO nation stands with this coup.
Click to expand...
it was NOT by legal means. He called the referendum when he is not constitutionally allowed to do so. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled it as unconstitutional and ordered the military to not distribute election supplies. So the President, circumventing rule of law sought help from Hugo "anything to stay in power" Chavez to violate the rule of his own court. That is not the actions of a lawful president. I agree, they should not have deported him, they should have arrested him and placed him in jail, tried him for treason and then imprisoned him.
 
charver said:
From what i can gather (man this Honduras stuff is like crack cocaine) he had already lost support of the army, parliament and most of the people in the country.

With little control on the actual levers of power what was to stop a couple of chaps in suits from the police pitching up at the Presidential abode, putting his stuff in a couple of boxes and turfing him out on the street?

Then bring forward elections without his name on the ballot.

Hows about that? No need for the kidnapping and deporting bit, you see?
Click to expand...
Except you would have called it "kidnapping" that is pretty much what happened. However instead of arresting him and trying him they let him go to Costa Rica. I think they were extremely lenient.
 
Damocles said:
You say tomato, I say ta mah toe...

Seriously, this is getting repetitive. How do you propose they remove an executive that refuses to go?
Click to expand...


Um, that's not quite what happened here. It isn't as though an election was held and the fellow refused to leave office after an election. On what basis was he removed from office prior to the expiration of his term in office? What procedures are required for a President to be removed from office prior to the expiration if his term in office?

I haven't the foggiest idea, but seems to me that having the military nab the sitting president in the dead of the night and flying him to Costa Rica in his jammies isn't quite the way to go about it.
 
blackascoal said:
If his citizens voted to remove term limits, then he should stay in office as long as he's elected.

The military NEVER gets to decide.
Click to expand...
Only if the referendum is legal, again, this was not. The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled it unconstitutional, he then tried to get a foreign nation to intervene on his behalf. What he did was not legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top