Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Jun '09 16:28
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123126.stm

    Troops in Honduras have detained the president ahead of a referendum on plans to change the constitution.

    President Manuel Zelaya was flown to Costa Rica from an air force base outside the capital, Tegucigalpa.

    Mr Zelaya, elected for a non-renewable four-year term in January 2006, wanted a vote to extend his time in office.

    The referendum, due on Sunday, had been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and was also opposed by Congress and members of Mr Zelaya's own party.

    Reuters news agency reports that police fired teargas at about 500 supporters of Mr Zelaya who had gathered outside the presidential palace.



    So the question is, are they patriots for protecting the constitution, or traitors for rebelling against the president?
  2. 28 Jun '09 18:10
    Mr Zelaya's ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire", and threatened military action in the event that the Venezuelan ambassador to Honduras was attacked, reported Reuters

    and again, the usual scapegoating...

    despite the fact that The White House denied any involvement, US President Barack Obama urged Honduras to "respect the rule of law" and the EU condemned Mr Zelaya's arrest .
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '09 19:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123126.stm

    Troops in Honduras have detained the president ahead of a referendum on plans to change the constitution.

    President Manuel Zelaya was flown to Costa Rica from an air force base outside the capital, Tegucigalpa.

    Mr Zelaya, elected for a non-renewable four-year term in January 2006, want ...[text shortened]... they patriots for protecting the constitution, or traitors for rebelling against the president?[/b]
    What provision of the Honduran Constitution authorizes a military coup?
  4. 29 Jun '09 14:26
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_political_crisis

    The ongoing 2009 Honduran political crisis is a constitutional crisis triggered by President Manuel Zelaya's and his supporters' decision to follow through with a referendum rejected by Congress and ruled illegal by the nation's two highest courts. Zelaya was arrested one hour before polls were due to open for the referendum, by soldiers acting on the orders of the Supreme Court of Honduras.[1]

    The Supreme Court's ruling was supported by the nation's Congress, the nation's Attorney General, and the country's human rights ombudsman, each of whom accused Zelaya of demagoguery and of violating the nation's laws by urging the nation's laws be altered dramatically on his own behalf.[2][3]

    The armed forces of Honduras arrested President Manuel Zelaya, on June 28, 2009, at his home[4] after he allegedly violated rulings of the Supreme Court of Honduras. Zelaya was held in an airbase outside Tegucigalpa[1] before being flown to Costa Rica.[5] During the action, communications and electricity were interrupted for about six hours. Later that day, the Honduran Supreme Court made public that it had ordered the removal of the president.[1]

    Roberto Micheletti, the head of Congress (and a member of the same party as Zelaya), who is in line to fill any vacancy in the presidency, was sworn in as President by the National Congress.[6] The event was greeted with applause in Congress, which had denounced Zelaya's repeated violations of the constitution and the law and disregard of orders and judgments of the institutions.[7]

    The international reaction to the military's forced removal of Zelaya has been universally negative. Many governments and international media have described the events as a coup d'état.[8]


    Legal arguments

    There is contention over whether or not the events constitute a coup d’état; the newly established Honduran government rejects this characterization, while most other nations which have made declarations have used the word.

    Article 239 of Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen (including the president) who proposes reforming this law, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[64] The Constitution, however, establishes no process for impeaching or removing a president.[13] Furthermore Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution states that citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic." According to the same article, the decision to revoke the citizenship rests in the government, following a court sentence.[64]

    The military claims to have been acting under the instruction of the Supreme Court of Justice, and their actions were ratified afterwards by both the court and the Liberal-majority National Congress. Zelaya is a member of the Liberal party. The National Congress named and ratified Roberto Micheletti, the next person in line for the presidency, within hours. The Constitution establishes that in the absence of the President of the Republic, the Vice President takes his place. However, the Vice President Elvin Santos (elected in Zelaya's ticket) resigned in November 2008 to run for the presidency. Zelaya replaced him with a "Vice President Commissioner" that is barred from taking the position of President of the Republic if needed. In the absence of a Vice President, it is the President of National Congress that takes charge of the Executive until the end of the President's term (January 27, 2010).[64][65]

    A document sent to Congress purported to be a resignation from President Manuel Zelaya, which he denied. The succession, however, is based on Congress having removed him from office, not simply on his own alleged resignation.
  5. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    29 Jun '09 14:42
    any CIA involvement?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '09 14:44
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_political_crisis

    The ongoing 2009 Honduran political crisis is a constitutional crisis triggered by President Manuel Zelaya's and his supporters' decision to follow through with a referendum rejected by Congress and ruled illegal by the nation's two highest courts. Zelaya was arrested one hour before polls were ...[text shortened]... s having removed him from office, not simply on his own alleged resignation.
    Article 239 is irrelevant.

    Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_constitution
  7. 29 Jun '09 15:51
    Originally posted by uzless
    any CIA involvement?
    Why would there be? The president wanted to violate the constitution, he is the only one to blame.
  8. 29 Jun '09 15:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Article 239 is irrelevant.

    Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_constitution
    Yes, that's what Chavez did before.

    You can't use popular support to change the constitution, in order to allow presidents to become caudillos, opening the doors of authoritarianism.

    Suppose Obama changed the constitution (due to popular demand), allowing himself to be re-elected as many times as he wanted. It would sound OK because the majority allowed it to happen, but it would be damaging to democracy and other political parties.

    There is no point in having a constitution if you change it every time it suits a certain leader.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '09 16:11
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Yes, that's what Chavez did before.

    You can't use popular support to change the constitution, in order to allow presidents to become caudillos, opening the doors of authoritarianism.

    Suppose Obama changed the constitution (due to popular demand), allowing himself to be re-elected as many times as he wanted. It would sound OK because the majority ...[text shortened]... re is no point in having a constitution if you change it every time it suits a certain leader.
    What part of this didn't you understand?

    Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.
  10. 29 Jun '09 16:35
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What part of this didn't you understand?

    Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.
    So do you think he was doing that just for the sake of it? don't you think there was something hidden behind the apparently harmless referendum?

    No1, you have a lot to learn about latin america, and politicians in general.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '09 17:20
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    So do you think he was doing that just for the sake of it? don't you think there was something hidden behind the apparently harmless referendum?

    No1, you have a lot to learn about latin america, and politicians in general.
    It's unsurprising that you support ANOTHER military coup against an elected President.
  12. 30 Jun '09 03:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What part of this didn't you understand?

    Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.
    No1marauder, who's gullible enough to believe that zelaya's intentions were not completely self-serving?... stupid enough even. Surely you are not so gullible and stupid, nor could you expect us to be.

    Especially after Chavez did the same thing.

    Do you or do you not support the idea that changes to a Constitution should be done as prescribed by the established legal framework rather than through mob rule?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    30 Jun '09 04:03
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    No1marauder, who's gullible enough to believe that zelaya's intentions were not completely self-serving?... stupid enough even. Surely you are not so gullible and stupid, nor could you expect us to be.

    Especially after Chavez did the same thing.

    Do you or do you not support the idea that changes to a Constitution should be done as prescribed by the established legal framework rather than through mob rule?
    There are self-serving politicians? Who'd have thought?

    What is the "the established legal framework" for military coup d'etats in Honduras?
  14. 30 Jun '09 04:18
    Originally posted by FMF
    There are self-serving politicians? Who'd have thought?

    What is the "the established legal framework" for military coup d'etats in Honduras?
    You mean, let crimes continue until each detailed specific crime has it's own personalized legal procedure? That's a brilliant idea... except some people prefer that the rule of law be applied by institutions that can enforce the law acting in accordance with the intent of congress, even if that means that a President can't trample on the Constitution, the highest law of the land.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    30 Jun '09 04:58
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    You mean, let crimes continue until each detailed specific crime has it's own personalized legal procedure? That's a brilliant idea... except some people prefer that the rule of law be applied by institutions that can enforce the law acting in accordance with the intent of congress, even if that means that a President can't trample on the Constitution, the highest law of the land.
    So the army is within its constitutional rights to send the elected president into exile?