Here is the latest update on Honduras from the BBC news. Since Sunday, civil liberties have been suspended by presidential proclamation. All “unauthorized” public meetings have been banned. News media can be temporarily closed down by simple presidential order. Two have been already closed, and they were both critical of the “interim” government, Radio Globo and Cholusat Sur TV. Today film that was snuck out was released showing armed troops entering the offices of the TV station and carrying out equipment to prevent them from broadcasting.
On Monday, “Mr. Micheletti said there were concerns the decree ‘could affect the elections’, planned to take place in November.” Mr. Micheletti is the “interim” president of Honduras supposedly there only long enough to arrange for new elections. And, yet, notice that he is now starting to launch the balloon that he may not be able to hold the elections that he planned in November.
And so, our old Latino pattern begins to re-emerge. We overthrow a president because we claim that we are saving democracy or saving the country or some such. The successor promises elections, but little by little the repression starts and the promised future elections start to slip away.
And, folks, this is why it is important to support the rule of law. Without the rule of law, one can convince oneself to do almost anything, on the grounds that one is saving one’s country. We cannot support the rule of law only when we like the person or cause. We must support the rule of law even when we strongly dislike a person or cause. Courts consistently rule in favor of legal and civil rights, even for people they dislike, because they know that the law must be upheld. To allow a law to be broken in order to “catch a criminal” or to refuse someone’s civil rights because they are eminently unlikeable is the first crack that can bring the house down.
Today I heard the current president of the Organization of American States–President Arias of Costa Rica–giving an interview (in Spanish) on TV. He made the point that the entire OAS considers the current government of Honduras to be illegitimate because it did not follow its own internal law on impeaching a president.
But, of course, the actions to suspend civil rights and to close media that criticize the current government also show the illegitimacy of the current government. But, it follows. You see, once one breaks the rule of law, it is only a short time until one finds reasons to continue to violate the rule of law. And one had better hope that when there is an eventual pendulum swing that the government that takes over believes in the rule of law, because our Latino history shows that when one violates the rule of law the next government is likely to violate you.
Reading from a copy of the 27-year-old Honduran Constitution, legal scholar and Honduran born Miguel Estrada cited Article 239 that any president who so much as proposes amending the document to permit re-election “must immediately cease the discharge of their duties and shall be disqualified for ten years from the exercise of any public function.”
He also noted that “the constitution does not allow for impeachment or immunity of elected officials. As of 2004, no immunity can protect a President from arrest.”
Although amending the constitution is permitted through a referendum or a “supermajority” in the Congress, Estrada explained, there are certain things that cannot be changed: “one is the borders of Honduras and the other is the rules that limit the President to a single four-year term.”
The issue of whether Zelaya violated the law and was thus subject to removal from office had been going back and forth since March, when the lameduck President began suggesting a convention to rewrite the constitution. Zelaya, noted Estrada, “is not an idiot” and knew that an entirely new constitution was the only way to upend the re-election ban (precisely what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela in order to seek re-election).
The Honduran President also began pushing for a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should be held. But when the Honduran attorney general secured a court order halting the referendum, Estrada said, “Zelaya announced the voting would go forward anyway but called it an ‘opinion poll,’” said Estrada.
After the ballots (which Estrada said he understood were printed in Chavez’s Venezuela) were impounded, Zelaya gathered a group of supporters, led the group to seize the ballots, and vowed to hold the “opinion poll” June 28th.
“But on June 25th,” said Estrada, “the Supreme Court concluded [Zelaya] was engaged in conduct that is treason and issued a warrant for his arrest.” The military then acted on the court’s order and arrested Zelaya under Article 272 of the Constitution which charges the armed forces with defending “the primacy of the Constitution, the principles of the universal sufferage, and alternation in the exercise of the Presidency of the Republic. [italics added].”
Underscoring the legality of the Zelaya ouster, Estrada recalled how the Honduran Congress (which is dominated by the deposed president’s own Liberal Party) met following his arrest voted overwhelmingly (122 to 6) to remove him from office. Since Zelaya’s vice president had already quit to run for President in the November elections, Liberal floor leader Robert Micheletti was elected president by Congress.
Now see, arguments of this type are much more likely to convince me than simply trying to claim that I support leftists. This argument is based on the rule of law and on legal interpretation.
You act as if oranizations of States means anything.
The U.N. denounced Israel when it took out Iraq’s nuclear program way back when.
So what?
It was the right thing to do.
The U.N., the OAS, have more stink in them than perfume.
Arguments of this type are not likely to convince me because it is all too easy to justify whatever one wants. And, because the UN has so often disagreed with the US on certain matters, we have decided that it must be wrong and we must be right. Of course, we might simply be wrong on any of several issues. But, again, that is an argument based on feelings and not legality.
It’s just that 95% of the news is written by people left of center. And sometimes people take it as gospel.
I guess more than trying to convince you, is just trying to get you to see the other side of the story and maybe hear a few new arguments that you’ve never heard,
I guess you have the same hope for me.
Thanks, Father O.!
In related news, Zelaya’s buddy is spreading some more “freedom” around in Venezuela:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2fc299db2cd4e935945936820f1d8be0.a1&show_article=1
Irrelevant to Zelaya’s illegal overthrow. The point that the OAS makes is that we must stand for legal and democratic means rather than for illegal actions, whether they be by the left or by the right.
INSULZA IN HONDURAS: “WE NEED DIALOGUE SO THAT HONDURANS DON’T HAVE TO KEEP PAYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HAPPENED”
October 7, 2009
Tegucigalpa, Honduras The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, made Wednesday a strong call to dialogue in order to achieve the restoration of unity within the Honduran people and its democratic institutionality.
During the inauguration of the Dialogue Table with representatives of President José Manuel Zelaya and the de facto Government in Honduras, which took place in the Madrid Hall of the Clarion Hotel in Tegucigalpa, the Secretary General said that “we all need dialogue to heal divisions and so that Hondurans don’t have to keep paying the consequences of what happened.”
The aforementioned dialogue, he said, will allow the return of the “previous democratic institutionality, guarantee that the elections on November 29 will truly be the free expression of the people’s will, the path through which the democratic political process will be channeled and the end of sanctions that we never wanted to impose.”
It’s not irrelevant.
This is how his ilk acts when they get power and want to keep power.
Zelaya and Chavez are like two peas in pod.
From the Drudge Report today. Follow the link posted on Drudge:
Deal may return Zelaya
October 15, 2009
TEGUCIGALPA. Honduran negotiators have reached agreement on ending a political crisis triggered by President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster in a June coup.
”We have agreed in a document on point No. 6, which relates to the restitution of the powers of state to where they were before June 28, 2009,” Mr Zelaya’s representative said.
Restoring the state to the situation before the coup would imply Mr Zelaya’s return to office, which had been opposed by Robert Micheletti, the head of the coup-backed interim government.
Mr Micheletti and Mr Zelaya must now ratify the agreement reached by their representatives.
Once again, the fact that the story calls it a “coup” reveals a bias. It was a legally authorized action taken up by the Honduran government, to prevent a power hungry, would-be dictator from taking over their country.
If Zekaya ever does get back into power…you will see exactly what I have talking about.
Wait, it suddenly struck me that I think I know part of why we are communicating past each other after reading your last post!!!!
Most people do not know how the OAS works because the USA is not fully bound by the internal agreements of the OAS like the other member governments. The member governments of the OAS (except the USA) have agreed to be bound by the rulings of a type of regional court with regards to matters having to do with human rights, etc. Not all matters can go to that court, only some of them.
For instance, when Alberto Fujimori was President of Perú, one of his “managed” courts ruled against a person on a matter of human rights. That person appealed to the OAS court and was upheld. Perú obeyed the OAS court even though it overturned their own court system, because that is part of the OAS treaty. That court functions somewhat like a similar court in the European Union.
In your posts, you are assuming that Honduras, like the USA, has unquestioned internal sovereignty free from external review. But, that is not true of the OAS nations. Like the European Union, they have ceded some of their judicial–and other–authority to the OAS. So, when I talk of the OAS, I am thinking that they do have a right to speak into the situation. The USA, of course, did not sign that part of the treaty, and most USA citizens are used to thinking of all nations as fully sovereign, but that is not completely so.
This is the reason why the current Honduran government is responding to the OAS and the negotiations. It is not that they fear an invasion or sanctions–both would be unlikely in the current world climate. Nor is it because they fear an internal revolution–there really has not been that much upheaval. It is because as part of the treaty they signed decades ago, they agreed to this type of process.
That is why my argument has been purely legal. I do not necessarily support Zelaya and all his policies. I support the process and the OAS treaty. Does this help?
It does help.
I think it is also helpful to realize that international organizations of states are not concerned about freedom and justice. That the U.N. had Syria and Sudan on human rights councils proves that.
Constitutional scholars (Honduran) have shown that what Honduras did was legal. This guy is a would-be tyrant. Keeping him out of pwer bodes well for freedom. Letting him back in does not.
Gotta run, Father, out all day.
Thanks, my friend.
– Steve
Another update (related):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487593948546118.html
I also read the comment section, at least some, since there were too many to read. The comment that would most express my opinion was made 12 hours ago:
“The Supreme Kangaroo Court of Honduras voted against President Zelaya
The Supreme Kangaroo Court of Nicaragua voted in favor of President Ortega
All Supreme Kangaroo Courts deserve equal rights
The author is trying to “pick and choose” Supreme Kangaroo Courts
If you are going to criticize President Zelaya by using the Supreme Kangaroo Court’s decision then you most uphold the Supreme Kangaroo Court of Nicaragua’s decision in favor of President Ortega
All Supreme Kangaroo Court’s are created equal”