Obama punishes small country opposed to dictatorial ex-president

Personally I'd go with the word of the Honduran Supreme Court over some anonymous Irish forum troll but that's just me.

Which is why this topic is so funny.
We have a pile of people in this topic who regularly demonstrate problems with understanding their own nations constitution somehow claiming to know about another nations constitution.
To bring even more hilarity to the topic you have people who complain about judgements from their own supreme court lining up to back a dodgy ruling from a supreme court that their own government describes as one of the most corrupt in the whole of latin America.

BTW that last bit is a description from your government under Bush just to be on the safe side as some people seem to think they can simply reject such things if it was the current administration saying it

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is why this topic is so funny.
We have a pile of people in this topic who regularly demonstrate problems with understanding their own nations constitution somehow claiming to know about another nations constitution.
To bring even more hilarity to the topic you have people who complain about judgements from their own supreme court lining up to back a dodgy ruling from a supreme court that their own government describes as one of the most corrupt in the whole of latin America.

BTW that last bit is a description from your government under Bush just to be on the safe side as some people seem to think they can simply reject such things if it was the current administration saying it

So in other words you got nothing and are just trying to stir the pot. I understand now.

So in other words you got nothing and are just trying to stir the pot.

I have all I need , its called the constitution .
You know the document you don't know , the document that those journalists don't appear to know either.

Though as a backup you could also ask the head lawyer for the military in Honduras, he says the actions he advised in favour of were indeed actually illegal and unconstitutional...but he felt at the time that they were neccesary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You know the document you don't know

You mean the document that you don't know because so far you haven't demonstrated the least bit of knowledge about it.

Honduran Supreme Court 1
Tribesman 0

You mean the document that you don't know because so far you haven't demonstrated the least bit of knowledge about it.

Honduran Supreme Court 1
Tribesman 0

So you mean articulo 239 which was amended in 1998 and 2002 and re ratified in 2003...which you havn't read so obviously can't undertand, just like you havn't read anything else in the constitution, which is why your knowledge appears to be based on nothing but a few badly written newspaper articles.
If you want to try and argue a point August it might help if you had even the slightest grasp of the basics on the subject

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you mean articulo 239 which was amended in 1998 and 2002 and re ratified in 2003...which you havn't read so obviously can't undertand, just like you havn't read anything else in the constitution, which is why your knowledge appears to be based on nothing but a few badly written newspaper articles.
If you want to try and argue a point August it might help if you had even the slightest grasp of the basics on the subject

Heh, you still haven't produced anything besides personal attacks which are a poor substitute for the several parts of the Honduran Constitution that you claim are being violated.

So again Mr. Irish Honduran Constitution Expert whenever you are done stalling for time we're patiently waiting...

Heh, you still haven't produced anything besides personal attacks which are a poor substitute for the several parts of the Honduran Constitution that you claim are being violated.

Come back when you have actually read the document you are talking about August .