Obama punishes small country opposed to dictatorial ex-president

That's a direct quote I've translated from article 239 of the Honduran constitution.

So what?
It doesn't matter if the removal was fully in compliance with 378 articles of the constitution, unless it complies with all 379 articles it is unconstitutional.
Since the warrant, the arrest and removal were all enacted in violation of the constitution the whole procees is illegal.
Plus of course since the new "government" has violated another half dozen articles of the constitution since then its non existant constitutionality is furthewr destroyed.

I'm sure there will be, it's just that the pseudo-dictator won't be present, but anyone else will be.

Apart from thsoe who are imprisoned without trial ...or dead , but then again as the spokesman for security of the new "government" used to run death squads for the last dictatorship they have been pretty lucky so far. Actually its amazing how many people in the coup can be linked to dictatorships, death squads, terrorism and torture , not to mention the drugs trade.
Nice people just like Noriega, Pinochet and Galtieri

it amazes me how they're actually oppositing the "de facto" government.

It isn't amazing considering that most of the problems concerning the US standing in the region is due to their history of supporting coups like this one.

But anyway a simple question for you.
If the referendum on a non-binding resolution for possible future changes to the constitution had gone ahead how on earth would that have enabled Zelaya to extend his term in office? Given that the last change to the constitution took nearly 3 years to get drawn up and passed and Zelaya would have been out of office from the day of the vote anyway.

BTW I notice that on Monday your government arrested a former member of a latin American death squad who worked for a "government" that did a coup. Well done.

[martes86]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't matter if the removal was fully in compliance with 378 articles of the constitution, unless it complies with all 379 articles it is unconstitutional.

That's not a valid argument. It doesn't have to comply with all and every article, since most of them treat very different subjects totally unrelated to this problem. In fact, it might only have to comply with the few articles that reference civil rights, and the attributions given to the justice powers, which would be the really related stuff.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since the warrant, the arrest and removal were all enacted in violation of the constitution the whole procees is illegal.
Plus of course since the new "government" has violated another half dozen articles of the constitution since then its non existant constitutionality is furthewr destroyed.

A tribunal authorised it, so I'm inclined to think that maybe it was legal to THEIR LAWS. Maybe illegal from the point of international justice, but if they're actually doing that to prevent another of those "Bolivarian" movements and the problems that'd bring, then I'd say they have the right to do so, specially if the had the massive support of the population (at least initially). If Zelaya really were the good guy, he wouldn't struggle to create civil unrest in the country so that he could be restored, he'd use more civilised means. But since he's a Chavez alumni, he has to be all popular, pretending to have the support of the people. Cheap populism, the same thing Chavez enacts in Venezuela.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually its amazing how many people in the coup can be linked to dictatorships, death squads, terrorism and torture , not to mention the drugs trade.
Nice people just like Noriega, Pinochet and Galtieri

And Zelaya can be linked to Chavez, who's been closing media sites because they critizised him (allegedly a danger to national security) and nationalizing what's not his. And to Castro, which I think is, with the chinese and north-korean rulers, the oldest running dictator. After all they all share the same ideology, and tend to do alliances between each other.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It isn't amazing considering that most of the problems concerning the US standing in the region is due to their history of supporting coups like this one.

You said it, history. I don't see the US supporting coups now, that's part of the past. But the past is usually a powerful ally for these pseudo-dictators, because just by talking about the "imperialists" and the "yankees", about how bad they're for the world, they have lots of people at their feet, usually the ones that actually benefit from what they do.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But anyway a simple question for you.
If the referendum on a non-binding resolution for possible future changes to the constitution had gone ahead how on earth would that have enabled Zelaya to extend his term in office? Given that the last change to the constitution took nearly 3 years to get drawn up and passed and Zelaya would have been out of office from the day of the vote anyway.

You really think he'd have stepped out? The only reason he'd be stepping out would be another stage like this where he's forcibly removed. But I doubt that happens again if he comes back, because he'd surely make some laws to avoid being thrown out no matter what, even if they're illegal.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

BTW I notice that on Monday your government arrested a former member of a latin American death squad who worked for a "government" that did a coup. Well done.

Well, he was a proven killer, and he was in our country... I'd be ashamed if he wasn't arrested.

Cheers

That's not a valid argument. It doesn't have to comply with all and every article, since most of them treat very different subjects totally unrelated to this problem. In fact, it might only have to comply with the few articles that reference civil rights, and the attributions given to the justice powers, which would be the really related stuff.

Yes it is, it has to apply with every article that is relevant to the situation. It would be impossible to be in violation of an article that has nothing to do with the situation wouldn't it.
So the violations concern the issuing of the warrant, the enacting of the warrant, the legality of the arrest and the expulsion from the country (and two subsequent expulsions for good measure).

You said it, history. I don't see the US supporting coups now, that's part of the past.

Recent past, you only have top go back to events in Caracas 7 years ago where Colin Powell made a ***** of himself(again) or Haiti 5 years ago.
Plus of course I reffered to the US standing in the region, lots of those countries are still going through the legal process of bringing to justice those dictatorships and death squads who had US backing in their coups.