The TEA Parties are taking the front page right now, but there is a continuing story that is just as important. Honduras. It is completely unacceptable for the United States to treat an ally in this manner.
Much is missing from this article...like any kind of journalistic integrity.
The political crisis stemmed from Zelaya's plan to hold a referendum that could have changed the constitution and allowed longer term limits. The country's congress had outlawed the vote and the supreme court had ruled it illegal.
No, the country's Constitution outlaws the vote. Bothering to read article 239 of the Honduran Constitution will clear all this up. But apparently, the US government is doing to the Honduran Constitution what it is doing to our own.
6 comments:
Just to be clear, do you think it is OK for the military to forcibly remove an elected president who violates the nation's constitution and defies a court order?
Just to be clear, he was not "removed by the military". He was removed by order of the Supreme Court and the elected body, including his own party. Please read the appropriate articles of the Honduran Constitution to see that his removal was required and look deeper to see that it was completely within Honduran Law. I support the rule of law.
Make that "Honduran Supreme Court and the elected body...."
And just to be clear, you support the intervention of Venezuela in an unlawful attempt to circumvent the Honduran Constitution?
Just to be clear?
The military seized the president in the middle of the night and deported him from the country. He was not taken into legal custody. They then imposed martial law and censored the media, hardly the acts of a constitutional government. We'll see if they actually hold the scheduled elections in November as they've promised to do.
How exactly has Venezuela intervened? Have they invaded?
Whether a non-binding referendum (like the one the president planned after the court ruled against a binding referendum) violates the Honduran constitution is open to interpretation.
For someone who believes in personal freedom and limited government, I'm surprised that you would let the Wall Street Journal trick you into thinking that the current situation in Honduras is any more constitutional than the short-lived coup attempt against Chavez several years ago.
I'm no fan of Chavez, but I hoped this country would have learned its lesson about deposing democratically-elected leftist heads of state in favor of authoritarian dictators like Augusto Pinochet or Saddam Hussein. It may be in our short-term interests to do so, but only at great expense to our long-term interests and security.
We tolerated and supported Pervez Musharraf and his military coup regime in Pakistan for several years because he was supposedly going to keep the jihadists under control and help us look for Osama bin Laden. In fact, it was only after he was ousted by the current crop of corrupt but democratically-elected leaders that the Pakistani army actually went after the Taliban.
Dictators look after their own interests and don't give a damn about their people, because they aren't accountable to them.
I'm clearly not going to convince you, but that's ok. You are still wrong. You might want to read up on Chavez' "interest" in Honduras.
Kinda like his interst in"peaceful nuclear technology.
The military is to only body able to take the President into custody in Honduras.
The WSJ is not my only source. Perhaps NYT shouldn't be yours.
Post a Comment