This is the kind of democracy many of your fellow Americans are now supporting...
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Honduran troops detained seven international journalists covering the aftermath of a military coup Monday, freeing them unhurt a short time later. The government also took at least two television stations off the air and interrupted the broadcasts of others.
At least 10 soldiers, most with rifles drawn, arrived at the hotel where journalists from The Associated Press and the Venezuela-based television network Telesur were staying and unplugged their editing equipment in an apparent attempt to stop their coverage of protests in support of deposed President Manuel Zelaya.
[...]
The media apparently have been acting on orders from the government, though it is unclear who has been giving them. Soldiers have been posted around some television and radio stations and around the national power and phone companies.
Meanwhile, Rush declares that what is happening in Honduras is "what many of you wish would happen here, without the military..."
Being patriotic means supporting torture? Defending liberty and freedom means backing a Central American coup that sends a democratically elected President to another country in his pajamas? Loving the United States of America means wanting to overthrow your President?
No. The end doesn't always justify the means, as some in America apparently believe.
It is times like these that I'm damn proud to say that I voted for Democrats in this last election and will continue to support their idea of what democracy is and isn't. While President Obama is far from perfect, he sure beats the hell out of the crap I hear coming from conservative's mouths these days.
-photo via AP
.
24 comments:
Does Mr. Limbaugh realize that if we really had a revolution in this country like the one he envisions, he'd be one of the first they'd round up and shoot? No revolution wants an uncontrolled loudmouth like him around no matter what side he's on.
Are you kidding, MB? Limbaugh imagines himself as the official mouthpiece of the new power structure, what Alan Moore called "The Voice" in V for Vendetta. You're right--he'd be first against the wall, but he lacks the imagination to realize that.
There's no good horse in this race. A military coup against an unpopular president who was orchestrating his own power grab. And the hands of Chavez are everywhere. (Note that the journalists in the link are from Venezuela's official TV station).
Limbaugh would be Goebbels. I don't think he is uncontrolled at all. I think everything he says it's very calculated to hit the sweet spot of both extremes.
This guy is thankfully just a few vicodin cocktails away from being history himself. Isnt it sad that guys like this always seem to stick around while other celebs pass?
Alex is exactly right: search in vain for the white hats here. And yes, Chavez's fingerprints are everywhere. The pajama-clad president would be just another footnote had this coup not happened, and here's Chavez leading the charge for "the restoration of democracy" by demanding his return. What a farce.
They need to restore his jammied bottom to power and vote him out in November. Even then, this democracy is fragile as a freshly laid egg.
Rick,
As a Honduran citizen living and working in South Florida and a habitual reader of SFDB and previously SOTP, I am disappointed that you would be so quick to judge the events in Honduras without a full understanding of what's going on.
The supposed journalists are all from Telesur, the Venezuelan government sponsored TV station led by Chavez. They were temporarily detained to verify visas. What the media is failing to report on are all the abuses that protestors favoring the ex-president Mel Zelaya are commiting. These supporters (many of which are Venezuelan and Cuban professional trouble makers) are also attacking journalists that are trying to paint the complete picture of the Honduran situation.
A little background on the situation -
The military acted by decree of a unanimous vote of Congress. Zelaya was pushing forward on a poll to modify the constitution to remain in power indefinitely, even after the supreme court ruled such an action illegal. So you have a democratically elected congress upholding the decision of the supreme court against a standing president that was seeking to remain in power indefinitely by following the exact play by play that Chavez followed in Venezuela. What we (and everyone) most feared was the illegality of the election and the fact that the poll was "pre cooked" as have the results of many / all of Chavez' referendums. That - becoming a de-facto Chavez lead state aligned with Cuba and Nicaragua is what really was prevented and it was done with the full support of the people. This is what everyone seems to have overlooked. He is playing a victim on the international stage when his publicly-stated stance was that he wanted to rule indefinitely in spite of having over 85 percent of the population against it. All about checks and balances. 2 of the 3 govt branches diametrically opposed to his will. The guy is a megalomaniac.
At the end of the day, the events that transpired were within the rule of Honduran law. There have been several large rallies in support of the new interim government. These rallies are in the thousands supporting Micheletti as over 90% of the country is united in support of Mel's removal. Please do a little more research on the situation before you, like the rest of the world, condemn the acts of a courageous and brave country legally fighting to defend the Honduran constitution.
Victor,
My understanding is that any military action within the country borders would be illegal. Wouldn't it make sense to restore the president (and, thus, the presidency) and then impeach him for violating the law?
-g
G,
The events that transpired were legal. Mel had to be replaced as he was planning to change Honduras into a dictatorship. The Honduras people defended the constitution. While the involvement of the military causes an immediate negative knee jerk reaction across the international community, they acted on behalf of the Congress and the Supreme court in defense of our constitution. They removed Mel from office and offered protection to the Honduran people. The new government was installed with due process by the Honduran government and not by the military.
As I mentioned before, the country is elated that Mel has been taken out of power. If he comes back and is re-instated as president, this will be tragic. It will be chaos. I hope and pray that for the sake of my family who is still in Honduras this doesn't happen. He is planning to return to Honduras on Thursday. Legal proceedings have already been conducted issuing a warrant for his arrest upon entry to the country.
A Constitution that provides for the democratically elected president of the country to be marched in his pj's to an Air Force jet and flown out of the country?
Now that's some democracy!!!!!
Victor, please reassure me that Honduras isn't that screwed up.
Rick, once again you clearly "get it." Too bad folks like Victor can't see the larger picture.
Substantive advancement of US foreign policy can only occur if Obama relentlessly pursues a change of course from the prior administration's atavist paradigm. Obama has astutely recognized our past mistake of cultural bias, resulting in a catastrophically flawed world view whereby we assumed "power to the people" was a universal tome. To the contrary, as exemplified by his posture towards Iran and Honduras, Obama recognizes that throughout the world inherent stability arises through "power to the president." Like Obama, Rick, you see right through the conservative propaganda machines that smear and demonize stabilizing leaders such as Chavez. Just because we Americans carry emotional baggage that gives us pause to be governed by an empowered executive, that is no reason to impose that outmoded taboo on others. Obama is to be praised for shrugging off this useless coil.
Comments like Victor's are particularly frustrating. As an immigrant, it is disappointing that he now seeks to hoard Hope and Change within our borders. Why should the Honduran people be denied the clear, indisputable benefits of an empowered president? Mere miles away, Chavez has proven that a "managed democracy" is far superior to the "transparent democracy" paradigm pimped by the Bush administration.
Unfortunately, not enough media outlets are taking the steps that you have towards demonizing the Honduran military for their acts in opposition to anachronistic term limits. Term limits, as history has conclusively proven, only serve to undermine and destabilize the progressive agenda of empowered executive leaders. Again, one must wonder what Victor's true agenda is by denying progress to his home land.
Hopefully, Obama will be able to leverage his newly forged relationships with Chavez to orchestrate the re-installment of the Honduran president. It is my understanding that Chavez has already arranged for a peace-keeping force to enter Honduras to that end, a noble gesture that further demonstrates the stabilizing nature of empowered executives. Hopefully with Obama's approval, Chavez's beneficial influence over the region will continue to spread.
Rick, together lets send our best wishes to the people of Honduras, and plea for them to place their faith in the wisdom and boldness of Obama and Chavez.
Great, insightful, and well informed blogging Rick. Keep it up!
The Honduran constitution was revised and re-written in 1982. It can be found here - http://www.gobernacion.gob.hn/descargas/leyes/CONSTITUCION%20DE%20LA%20REPUBLICA.pdf
Article 3 of the constution (in spanish and translated below)
Artículo 3.-Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman
funciones o empleos públicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o
procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitución y las leyes
establecen. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. El pueblo tiene
derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional.
No one owes obedience to a usurping government nor anyone who assumes public function or employ by force of arms or by using means and procedure which break or do not follow what this constitution and the laws establish. The acts verified by any said authority are null. The people have the right to insurrection in defense of the constitution order.
The people (through their Congress and Supreme Court) exercised their right to insurrection and removed Mel in defense of the constitution.
-Article 237 states that the presidential term lasts 4 years. This is the main point of contention which Zelaya wanted to revise which would allow him to become a long term dictator and aligning Honduras even more with Chavez and his movement.
As the days go by, the actions of Honduras will be reviewed and Mel will be exposed as the corrupt theif that he is.
Rhamblow,
While I respect your opinion, it shouldn't surprise you that I disagree with it.
While you think that having Chavez "peace-keeping" forces in Honduras is a good thing, I can assure you that it will cause chaos. You may not know this but Chavez already has people in the ground in Honduras; unfortunately, they are the ones inciting the riots and violence.
Your comment on term limits may be correct, term limits are established to be 4 years by the Honduran constitution. Right, wrong or indifferent, the constitution of a soverign nation must be respected.
Then again, you may be right in saying that I don't see the big picture. If the big pictre is that allowing Honduras to follow Chavez and become a dictatorship and a full fledged drug-state will be positive for the people of Honduras, then I don't see the big picture.
I have no agenda. I am just a citizen of Honduras who sees my country being misunderstood and offered some explanations based on my experience and knowledge.
Victor,
If I understand this correctly, the path toward the remediation of a president who acts outside of the law does not, first, include the use of the police to arrest the president? Instead, they jump right into a Commander-in-Chief role and order a military action on their own soil?!?
This does not seem correct. Furthermore, I think that many on the right are conveniently mis-characterizing the Obama administration on this. It seems pretty obvious that Obama does not support Zelaya, but does recognize the need to respect the rule of law.
Look, there is a difference in defending President Zelaya and defending the legitimacy of the Honduran Office of the Presidency. It is in the interests of the entire region to ensure that this be resolved through a democratically determined legal process and not through a military one.
One the other hand, you may very well be familiar with portions of Honduran Constitutional law that I don't know of. I would very much be interested in learning what legal provisions and language exist for dealing with high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Executive in Honduras.
-g
PS You beat me to the punch. Here is the thing. The Military is a body of the government. A military that acts in the name of the military (ie wearing Honduran Military uniforms, using government provided weapons), it seems to me, by definition is not an insurrection. While this seems like splitting hairs, I think that this distinction is key in understanding why the rest of Western Hemisphere is in solidarity with the President.
In short, the Supreme Court seems to have acted outside of its authority. It does not seem to be legitimate to act outside of the specified rule of law in order to protect the rule of law.
So, Victor, I'm supposing you mean that this "insurrection" encompasses tossing the president out of the country at gunpoint? I'm wondering had the president decided to put up a little fight and happened to get a little lead poisoning on the way to the airport, would that also have been acceptable under the Honduran Constitution? Sorta like a pre-emptive dictatorship type of thing perhaps?
The problem with the end-justifies-the-means crowd is that truly any means winds up justifying the end that they desire. Want Saddam out of power? Non-existent WMD and terrorist links work perfectly. Even when the means involves the sacrifice of over 4,000 of our youngest and strongest men, the lies, the deceptions and the abuse of power all becomes worth it if the end is what they desire.
BTW, as g. says above, don't take this as an endorsement of the Zelaya government as extremist fringe right wingers make it out to be. If the guy was on his way to becoming another Chavez, good riddance. But there are provisions for his removal that reflects the sophistication of a modern democratic government and not that of a third world banana republic.
.
Rick and G,
Zelaya was on his way to become another Chavez.
It is not lost on me that the images and descriptions of an elected president being taken out in his pijamas by the military does not paint a nice picture for Honduras. Like many others, I wish it would have been done in a nicer and cleaner way to appease the world community. Unfortunately, the other branches of government decided that this was the way it had to be done. Also note that I would not be supportive of a government assasination as the lead poisoning you've mentioned.
Finally, I will re-iterate that I am glad Zelaya is out. It could have been executed in a better way but no one was killed. I look forward to the next couple of days where the Honduran government will be able to fully explain their side of the story along with the reasoning behind their actions. So far, the international community has only allowed one version of events to come forward.
Rick, thanks for the blog, and allowing me to comment freely and engage in civil discussion.
What we have here are the modern versions of two of Latin America's worse political traditions: the strongman or caudillo and the military intervention.
Zelaya was acting outside the law, there's no doubt. His last act was leading a pack of supporters inside a military base to retrieve ballots printed in Venezuela because those ballots had been ordered illegal by the judiciary and put under the safeguard of the army. It's the act of a caudillo, somebody who is determine to seize power. In the past the caudillos were aligned with the oligarchy (Zelaya BTW, is a wealthy rancher, not a product of the masses). But the neoliberal economic policies have resulted in a business and financial class that does not need the strongman but a shrewd technocrat that stays out of the way. See Mexico or Brasil pre-Lula. In present Latin America the path to caudillismo goes through populism ala Chavez, and before him Serrano in Guatemala and Fujimori in Peru. That's what Zelaya was attempting, quite transparently, and I'm the first one to say that it's very hard to stand aside while a caudillo makes a mockery of the democratic system that elected him. I can see why the legislative and judiciary felt compelled to act and pragmatically speaking, it's a messy situation with no clear winners, no way around it.
On the other hand, while I very much agree with Victor's depiction of the situation, I still think there's no way to put a pretty face on a military coup. Their biggest mistake was not to arrest Zelaya if in fact they had the authority to do it. However, what the military does in the upcoming days will certainly color the judgment. So far they seem to have transferred power down the civilian line, which is a far cry from the military juntas of yore. Let's see if Zelaya returns, as he has promised. If there is a legal way to impeachment or indictment and it's followed properly, the world should let Hondurans decide.
To say that Obama, the UN, the OAS, etc; stand with Chavez and against the Honduran people is both naive and in the case of our esteemed wingnuts, malicious and inflammatory. As the last Anon says, what is being defended is the legitimacy of the office no matter how repulsive the occupant, and the importance of restoring legal order.
Last but not least, let's not throw stones, ok? We had a president that resigned before being impeached and pardoned to avoid a political circus. Were we going to send Washington police to arrest Nixon? We had another impeachment circus that dragged the country on and on out of a political vendetta. Should Clinton had been indicted for perjury? These processes are always extraordinary circumstances in which there may not be a clear precendent or law.
Victor-
I must take issue with your use of the term "dictator" when describing bona fide leaders like Chavez, Ahmedenijad, Castro, or others who are acknowledged and respected by Obama. The term "dictator" has many negative connotations due to historical associations, none of which accurately apply to the men enumerated above.
Each of the men enumerated above were democratically elected, by elections overseen by the Carter Foundation for Democracy. They are every bit as legitimate as Obama.
Obama recognizes this fact, and has greatly improved the image of the US by making his position clear. Obama did not support the rioters in Iran, nor does he support the people in Honduras. Again, you fail to see the big picture, in that the US no longer is interested in promoting our "style" of democracy to the world. A nominal democracy, democracy theater, if you will, has proven to be just as effective at fostering stability. So long as we abandon purely Western conceptions of human rights, and adopt a relativistic approach, there is nothing un-American about it.
I cannot disagree that those Obama respects as "empowered executives", such as Chavez, might to some eyes display the external trappings of dictatorship. But I think if you look beyond the gloss, and rather at the substance of each leader's policies, you will detect subtle nuance that clearly differentiates each from the classic notion of a dictator.
I anticipate you will argue that the Honduran military are patriots, who saw a clear and present danger to the Honduran Constitution. You'll probably allege that they wanted to send a clear message to Chavez to stop meddling in their country.
But you forget, that a Constitution is a living, breathing document. A Constitution must change with the times. And the times call for power concentrated in an enlightened executive. You should embrace this Change, and have Hope. Have faith in empowered executives and their wisdom.
I should also warn you, that our host, Rick, is very sensitive to political speech that smacks of "incitement." I fear your comments tread dangerously close. To the extent the Honduran president advanced a progressive agenda, your comments might be construed a clear and present danger. You should really tone them down and conform to Obama's position.
Rhamblow,
In no way, shape or form were my comments meant to be offensive or inciteful. I have been respectful of everyone's opinion while stating mine. If I have crossed the line, please accept my apologies.
Rhamblow,
You should start a blog. You're pretty funny!
I think this Rhamblow guy openly mocks Rick. And I think he's a douche. Victor has stated some good arguments in a respectful way. Good talking points and give/take.
Whether you agree with him or not, Rhamblow has a gift of sarcasm. He does it well.
I lose interest at the end of the first paragraph. Sorry.
.
If Glenn Garvin endorsed it, that's enough for me!
The first time Rhamblow commented, a while ago, the sarcasm was better disguised. Now it's just too overt. Only one charge in his musket, as it turns out.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.