Honduras leader says country ready to ‘go to war’ as riots flare

Micheletti, after coming under stern criticism from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, said, “Nobody scares us,” warning Honduras is prepared to “go to war” if “this gentlemen” interferes, according to the Telegraph.

Click to expand...

Things are certainly getting interesting.

Raw Story Honduras leader says country ready to ‘go to war’ as riots flare

There seem to be massive conflicts in the stories surfacing as to what has actually taken place. Obama's statements side with Hugo Chavez that Mr Zelaya's removal was illegal. However news reports clearly contradict their view stating that the removal was done within the the laws of the land to protect the Constitution.
At least one report said that Mr Zelaya had ordered the military to arrest the Supreme court as they resisted his efforts to maintain his power past the one term allowed under their Constitution that is in place to prevent a dictatorship from gaining and holding onto power.
Could it be that want to be Dictator in Chief fears that he could be removed from office when people wake to all the questionable take overs he's already orchestrated with GM, Chrysler, and control over the banking industry and the move currently under way to take over control of health care? And to top it off he's trying to destroy the economy further with Cap in Trade that will, if past kill any chance of economic recovery? Why else would he back a potentially seriously dangerous dictator in waiting and leftist and embrace the views of Hugo Chavez against the Supreme Court of a sovereign Country.

Then we have the stories;
Honduras supreme court 'ordered army coup' - Telegraph
"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said.

Still from another source; Honduras Supreme Court says it ordered presidents' ouster_English_Xinhua

TEGUCIGALPA, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Honduran Supreme Court said Sunday that it has authorized the removal from office of President Manuel Zelaya and the nation's armed force has acted in defense of the rule of law.

"Legal authorities formally declare that if the source of the action taken today is a judicial order issued by a competent judge, then their execution is within the framework of legal precepts," read broadcaster HRN from a statement issued by Danilo Izaguirre, a Supreme Court spokesman.

Such an order "must also oppose anything that may stand in the way of Honduras being returned to the rule of law," the statement said.

can't believe this isn't a hotter topic

Honduras is Honduras's Problem.

I think it's clear the president was trying to subvert their constitution, and therefore the will of the people. He wanted more than his entitled term.

Caine said:

Honduras is Honduras's Problem.

Click to expand...

you are correct, up until the point that Dear Leader backed the President who allegedly is trying to violate their Constitution. More poor choices of the chosen one, or maybe he wants the sheeple to think that violating the constitution is no big deal now, so it is no big deal as he does it

DeeJayH said:

you are correct, up until the point that Dear Leader backed the President who allegedly is trying to violate their Constitution. More poor choices of the chosen one, or maybe he wants the sheeple to think that violating the constitution is no big deal now, so it is no big deal as he does it

Click to expand...

We should seriously go back to more of an isolationist stance on foreign politics.

Caine said:

We should seriously go back to more of an isolationist stance on foreign politics.

Click to expand...

I would prefer nonintervention than isolation

American said:

I think it's clear the president was trying to subvert their constitution, and therefore the will of the people. He wanted more than his entitled term.

Click to expand...

Some information about the constitution:

Honduran constitutions are generally held to have little bearing on Honduran political reality because they are considered aspirations or ideals rather than legal instruments of a working government. The constitution essentially provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of government, but in practice the executive branch generally dominates both the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Click to expand...

Honduras - THE CONSTITUTION

So maybe what Zelaya was doing was just business as usual, the only difference was that he pisssed of the military, economical and political elite. Also if he was so despised by the people they would have lost the non binding referendum and be out of power by next year.

Some more information about the constitution by the same link:

The Honduran constitution, the sixteenth since independence from Spain, entered into force on January 20, 1982. Just a week before, Honduras had ended ten years of military rule with the inauguration of civilian president Roberto Suazo Córdova. The constitution was completed on January 11, 1982, by a seventy-one-seat Constituent Assembly that had been elected on April 20, 1980, under the military junta of Policarpo Paz Garcí.

Click to expand...

So it's not far fetch to believe that the military junta that ruled the country before had some influence on the drafting of the constitution. So maybe it could be heard what the people believed about the constitution know almost thirty years after the military left power. But maybe the military though it to be to soon.

Bergslagstroll said:

So maybe what Zelaya was doing was just business as usual, the only difference was that he pisssed of the military, economical and political elite. Also if he was so despised by the people they would have lost the non binding referendum and be out of power by next year.

Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this "non binding referendum". How is such a documend/bill/law/whatever of any use to anyone, except to say "we who have voted for this want it this way, but are not requiring you to do what we say".

I mean...if it's non binding, why did people get upset over it?

Perhaps I don't understand what non binding means...

American said:

I think it's clear the president was trying to subvert their constitution, and therefore the will of the people. He wanted more than his entitled term.

Click to expand...

He was trying to subvert the will of the people by asking what they thought about extending term limits?

Red_Dave said:

He was trying to subvert the will of the people by asking what they thought about extending term limits?

Click to expand...

Yea, that is clear subversion for a right winger, where as a military coup by right wingers is okay! :doh

PeteEU said:

Yea, that is clear subversion for a right winger, where as a military coup by right wingers is okay! :doh

Click to expand...

Yes clearly allowing citizens to vote on their future like that was too much of an affront to the will people. Only mass arrests of oppossition members could defend democracy

Red_Dave said:

Yes clearly allowing citizens to vote on their future like that was too much of an affront to the will people. Only mass arrests of oppossition members could defend democracy

Click to expand...

Yea exactly. Democracy and civil rights and human rights are only good as long as the "right wing" is in power. When the "left wing" is in power then there is no democracy or civil rights or human rights, and the "right wing" has ever right to overthrow said government regardless of what nation.. aint that the prevailing ideology that is spreading more and more in the right?

Maybe when you guys get done fellating each other, you'll take some time to appreciate the irony of your own left-side-blindered positions here. :roll:

Harshaw said:

Maybe when you guys get done fellating each other, you'll take some time to appreciate the irony of your own left-side-blindered positions here. :roll:

Click to expand...

Well its your ilk thats defending a military government that has started to surpress opossition within days of taking power while claiming that a referendum is an affront to democracy.

PeteEU said:

Yea exactly. Democracy and civil rights and human rights are only good as long as the "right wing" is in power. When the "left wing" is in power then there is no democracy or civil rights or human rights, and the "right wing" has ever right to overthrow said government regardless of what nation.. aint that the prevailing ideology that is spreading more and more in the right?

Click to expand...

I dont think its so much prevailing as pretty much the standard pattern that liberal democracy follows. Democracy is allowed to a limited extent in the political spere but as soon as this extends to the economic spere were [particually in Latin America] a small amount of people reign supreme then its no longer democracy as far as they are concerned.

Red_Dave said:

Well its your ilk thats defending a military government that has started to surpress opossition within days of taking power while claiming that a referendum is an affront to democracy.

Click to expand...

My ilk? I'm rather consistently in favor of democratic liberty and processes, and if you can show otherwise, that I defend some "right-wing" government suppressing them somewhere, please do. The point is that both of you guys have done little but yawning when it comes to the misdeeds of left-wing strongmen vis-a-vis liberty. Very little worry about democratic rights in those cases . . .

Harshaw said:

Maybe when you guys get done fellating each other, you'll take some time to appreciate the irony of your own left-side-blindered positions here. :roll:

Click to expand...

Give me a break.

The US right is the most hypocritical bunch of people around at the moment.

How can you even defend the comments of Senator DeMint about supporting a coup d'etat against a freely democratic elected government? Not only is he breaking the GOPs own "rule" not to contradict official US policy, but he is also showing his very anti-democratic side by supporting a military coup!

PeteEU said:

How can you even defend the comments of Senator DeMint about supporting a coup d'etat against a freely democratic elected government?

Click to expand...

Where exactly did I do that?

Red_Dave said:

Well its your ilk thats defending a military government that has started to surpress opossition within days of taking power while claiming that a referendum is an affront to democracy.

Click to expand...

Haven't you been reading this thread?

The Executive branch 'routinely' dominates both the legislative and judicial branches.

This referendum wasn't 'just' an expression of opinion, it was going to be used as a blank check to subvert the principles upon which the people stood. Hugo Chavez Playbook 101.

Metternich said:

Haven't you been reading this thread?

The Executive branch 'routinely' dominates both the legislative and judicial branches.

This referendum wasn't 'just' an expression of opinion, it was going to be used as a blank check to subvert the principles upon which the people stood. Hugo Chavez Playbook 101.

Click to expand...

"Non-binding"

Harshaw said:

My ilk? I'm rather consistently in favor of democratic liberty and processes, and if you can show otherwise, that I defend some "right-wing" government suppressing them somewhere, please do. The point is that both of you guys have done little but yawning when it comes to the misdeeds of left-wing strongmen vis-a-vis liberty. Very little worry about democratic rights in those cases . . .

Click to expand...

Hey I am the first to admit there have been "left wing" strong men in various places around the world, but that is not what we are talking about here.

We are talking about a right wing lead military coup against a democratic elected government. And it is not after all a new thing in the region, where the few rich elite have used the military to hold on and take power and hold power away from the masses. There is pretty much no country in central and south America that has not been affected by right wing military elite coups through the last 60 years and most of those were supported by the US, and especially the US right wing. Now you can claim (and I would agree somewhat) that it was the cold war and ****, but guess what.. that is over. What is the excuse now?

The US right are living up to their "conservative" stigmata, but living in the past and not wanting any change what so ever ....

Harshaw said:

My ilk? I'm rather consistently in favor of democratic liberty and processes, and if you can show otherwise, that I defend some "right-wing" government suppressing them somewhere, please do. The point is that both of you guys have done little but yawning when it comes to the misdeeds of left-wing strongmen vis-a-vis liberty. Very little worry about democratic rights in those cases . . .

Click to expand...

Well you seam pretty much on the side of the Junta in Honduras in this instance, that is exactly what the Junta is doing. I love that im being painted as some sort of authoritarian for defending the right of people to vote for who they want

Red_Dave said:

He was trying to subvert the will of the people by asking what they thought about extending term limits?

Click to expand...

He called for a vote he had no power to call for, he used Chavez to print ballots because he is legally not allowed to do so and the courts of Honduras said "you can't do that."

He was legally ousted.