- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2009 at 5:44 pm #670196
JoBParticipantsky2625..
i waited for a clear head to read your post.. but find i am still puzzled as to your bottom line. Perhaps it’s just me?
I do think we agree that this is a difficult and complicated issue… and that chest thumping here could have some huge unintended consequences.
on days like this.. i am glad i am just sitting on the sidelines commenting…
June 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm #670197
Sky2625MemberJoB-
I’m glad I didn’t boil your blood this time.
My synopsis: Despite how much we all might want liberty, freedom, and reform to break out in Iran, I think President Obama’s restraint in his commentary is a prudent course of action.
Additionally, I am beginning to doubt that Moussavi represents the change that we’d like him to be. The more I read, the more the Iranian election sounds like an internal power struggle between clerical factions:
One faction is the old ruling elite that has been arond since 1979, and seeks to protect their own financial holdings, grip on power, and all the benefits these bring. The other faction is tied heavily to the state secuity apparatus, taps into populist distrust of the old ruling elite, and envisions Iran as a strong regional power.
Moussavi is the public face of the first faction, Ahmadinejad is the voice of the second.
Meanwhile, the civilians protesting for liberalized reform never really had a horse in this race.
June 24, 2009 at 9:46 am #670198
JoBParticipantSky2625..
i suspect your analysis is dead on…
tho it did appear that a change of horses and rhetoric might have accomplished lifting some of the trade restrictions which would have helped the middle class… Moussavi’s public face is much less objectionable than Ahmadinejad’s.
July 2, 2009 at 7:34 am #670199
HMC RichParticipantSorry, I am soooo confused. Our President didn’t want to meddle in the affairs of Iran (while people were dying). But when the Honduran President Zelaya tries to become a dictator and is escorted out of the country, our President speaks out against the “coup”. Granted so did a lot of countries.
Remember, there are term limits for the Honduran presidental position. Zelaya wanted them overturned. Their supreme court and legislature stood firmly on their constitution and barred him from his unconstitutional acts.
It amazes me (not really) that our President stands with Zelaya, Chavez and Castro and does not stand with the law and constitutional people of Honduras.
Zelaya wanted to become the next dictator. President Obama seems to be way to close to getting along with dictators and ignoring democracies. Call me crazy but I thought he didn’t want to meddle!
July 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm #670200
charlabobParticipantUm, Rich, the law is that Zelaya was elected and has 18 montns (?) to go on his *first term*. The corporatists (and military) supported him for election–he was one of them. Then he became just a little bit more populist when he realized he was president of all the people. (Then, um, they overthrew him. I repeat: THE PRESIDENT OF HONDURAS, CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED, WAS OVERTHROWN. What part of that is hard to understand?
July 2, 2009 at 2:07 pm #670201
JoBParticipantcharlabob…
it’s easy to understand…
it just doesn’t fit with “the” story..
why let facts get in the way?
July 3, 2009 at 8:31 am #670202
HMC RichParticipantFact: Mr. Zelaya’s referendum on changing term limits was unconstitutional.
Fact: The Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress gave the go ahead to take him from power.
Fact: The U.S. tried to stop this from happening and were unsuccessful.
Fact: The replacement of Zelaya was constitutional.
Fact: The Obama administration is changing the way this country is viewed internationally. I suspect you guys are in favor of his approach.
HMC nice editorial – I hope you are right but I think he is throwing his lot in with the wrong crowd. If Chavez and Castro are buddies with Zelaya, then dictatorship may be just around the corner. I am certain there is more going on than meets the eye. So far the press hasn’t been silenced in Honduras and hopefully there will be no deaths. There is probably way more to this issue that is not being reported too. The elite or aristocracy do not want referendums such as this. There is still a class seperation in that country. For my money, if the coup was constitutional, then I feel it was warranted. If it isn’t then return him to power. Regardless, there will not be a term limit referendum until after the next election.
July 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm #670203
YardvarkMemberI dig that HMC Rich has recently become a Honduran constitutional law expert.
Seems like all of it is all just blatantly childish: Zelaya’s actions, the Congress’s actions, the military’s actions.
Everyone just needs to take a time out, sit in the naughty chair, and learn about sharing and cooperation. And then…nap time.
I wish I could’ve imposed nap time during the Bush years!
July 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm #670204
Sky2625MemberWhile I can understand why Obama took the stance he did with Iran, I’m lost on his reaction to the removal of Zelaya.
I’ve read quite a bit on this in the last week, and the opinion piece linked below seems, to me, to best explain what I’ve read. It also happens to be written by a Honduran.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
Rich’s facts are correct, but he left out a few details:
1: Zelaya disobeyed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the referendum and ordered the military to distribute the ballots anyway.
2: The military refused to take part in an illegal act, per the Supreme Court’s ruling.
3: Zelaya fired the head of the military. The Supreme court overruled this action.
4: Zelaya then led a mob to the military base in order to seize the ballots stored there.
5: The next morning (I believe), he was arrested.
The key point is that merely proposing a change to the constitution in the arena of presidential term limits is unconstitutional. Per the Honduran Constitution, any official that does so is automatically stripped of their powers.
The problem with the Honduran constitution, which will shortly be amended I’m sure, is that there are no provisions for HOW a president is formally removed from office. Though he disqualified himself and lost his powers, there was no procedure in place for acknowledging that he disqualified himself, or for triggering the presidential succession.
If there’s any critique of the situation, it lies there.
Honestly, I fully expected something slimy and typically Latin American when I read “Military Coup in Honduras” news headlines.
The truth is far from this. The Hondurans stood up for their constitution, and rid themselves of a president that was endangering it. On this July 4th weekend, I think that is something all Americans ought to celebrate.
July 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm #670205
JoBParticipantJuly 3, 2009 at 9:15 pm #670206
YardvarkMemberA president who expressed intent to extend term limits would have violated the constitution.
Zelaya obviously didn’t violate the constitution, nor did he show intent to do so.
He wanted to conduct an opinion poll. He did not attempt to convene a constitutional assembly. He did not attempt to pass a law.
And so this is why the Obama administration has likely taken the neutral stance saying that everyone should just calm the heck down and not be so eager to use the military.
The Honduran military doesn’t exactly have the best track record for defending democracy, and its leaders haven’t much changed.
Much better for everyone if this issue is simply solved through the legal process in which Zelaya could easily get off since he showed no intent to violate the constitution, only to take a simple (though highly ill-advised and suspect) opinion poll.
As always, though, it’s none of my business anyhow.
Maybe we should just focus on the constitutional violations of our own presidents. Plenty there.
July 3, 2009 at 11:21 pm #670207
JoBParticipantJuly 4, 2009 at 10:32 am #670208
HMC RichParticipantThanks Sky. With Central America’s dismal record of failed governments, I am hopeful that a legal and peaceful resolution can be found.
I have been given the Don’t F**k With Me stare by Guatemalan soldiers armed to the teeth. It is NOT a pleasant experience. One of our guides showed his bullet wound scars from their civil war. I like most others want peace. They deserve it.
If the pressure by the OAS helps bring about new elections so be it. The temporary President is from the same party as the ousted leader. This is not some opposition party group trying to get a leg up. Let us hope for the best.
Democracy’s are tough to maintain in the fledgling years. If George Washington had been more power hungry, we might have had a much different union. Some wanted him to be king.
JoB, yes we should focus on the constitutional violations of our presidents. They should answer to us.
July 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm #670209
YardvarkMemberYou can’t just have a bunch of powerful people get together and say that the President is getting too big for his britches so we’re gonna order the military to get rid of him tomorrow and elect a better one whenever we get around to it.
Since the party system in Honduras isn’t nearly as incestuous as our own, political power is still mostly on a person by person basis.
And since Micheletti was the head of parliment, he knew that if he got rid of Zelaya, then he himself would become president. Bit of a conflict of interest, yes?
Unable to find a way to impeach Zelaya, Micheletti just woke up one day and said “Ah, screw it. If I send in the military, I get to president. I’ve always wanted to be president.” And then got his own parliment and a couple friends in the court to okay the order.
This is not democracy. Period.
I guess I’ll look forward to hearing that the Honduran Parliment will be holding impeachment trials and immediately reinstating Zelaya under censure (or the Honduran equivalent).
On a side note, I’ll also be looking forward to hearing President Obama support investigations into constitutional (and war crime) violations by the Bush administration.
But I don’t think I’ll ever see either these, yeah?
July 4, 2009 at 5:59 pm #670210
JoBParticipantYardvark…
i agree that you are unlikely to see either of those things…
but the same people who would howl like crazy at the idea of our last president being prosecuted for his actual constitutional violations and war crimes are still whining about Clinton lying about sex… and will watch this president like a hawk for anything they can throw at him…
they think if they throw enough mud… some of it will stick and if it doesn’t it will at least present most people from seeing the truth.
You can’t blame them for thinking it will work.
If you can make protectors of the constitution out of Micheletti and the Guatemalan military you can sell almost anything.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.