Chavez Playbook Fails in Honduras
Some may argue that the military’s removal of the president by force was not democratic. Indeed, on the surface it would seem to be illegal, however given that the president was pressing on with his illegal actions, declared so by the supreme court, congress and the military, it was in fact a fairly reasonable and foreseeable response. While of course, I do not encourage such actions by any military in general, in the case of Honduras, the constitutionally mandated checks on presidential power had failed. Since Zelaya blatantly continued his illegal activity, we can in fact be thankful that he was ousted before having a chance to rewrite the constitution and turn the country into an even poorer, worse off Venezuelan satellite.
ADDENDUM III:
Having just suffered a humiliating electoral defeat at home, leftist Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez, vows to accompany Zelaya back to Honduras.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Chavez playbook fails in Honduras |:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
[…] This would appear to put a whole different light on the coup With an arrest warrant from the Honduran Supreme Court (hat tip NYkrinDC), the Honduran military today removed from office President Manuel Zelaya, a political protege of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for proceeding with an illegal referendum designed to lay the groundwork for an unconstitutional additional term in office. Zeleya has been sent into exile in Costa Rica. […]
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I am curious as to by what authority the Honduran Supreme Court has to summarily remove an elected president and send him into exile? Is that constitutional? I think not. At best they have authority to prevent the poll from taking place or nullify its results. There actions are certainly a worse affront to constitutionality than an attempt to hold a non-binding referendum the same court decided was unconstitutional. Claims on the part of the coup to be acting constitutionally or defending the constitution are empty, as are any pretense to democracy. (Not that defending the constitution against change in this case would be in any way righteous. The provisions of the Honduran constitution on this matter are outrageous and unjust. It is no wonder that they’re controversial or that people want to change them, and that the public would vote to change them. They declare a one term limit and block all legal means for anyone to ever change this law by any method ever. They even prohibit anyone from arguing for changing it. That is just tyranny: past generations have no right to dictate their favored law for all time and take away the ability of every future generation to change it.)
The reality here is clear. This court and some of the political and military elite did not want this referendum to take place because they knew the people would vote in favor of Zeleya’s proposals (the poll taking place would be no threat to them otherwise). So they decided to overthrow the elected government by force instead. A minority interest "the military and broad elite" has forcibly overthrown the will of the majority because they knew it was going to go against their interest.
This is classic plutocratic coup de tat, just like dozens in the past. It’s now even complete with a fake "resignation letter" the coup is waving around as they install their dictator. This blog appears to be buying into and promoting a lot of the coup’s propaganda. That is a shame.
The world at large seems to be seeing through it though:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/honduras-military-coup-blow-democracy http://americasmexico.blogspot.com/2009/06/oas-countries-back-zelaya-calls-for.html
zen:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Hi John,
.
The trouble with breaking rules is that your opponents then might break them too – and do a better job of it. And you yourself just legitimized their behavior. Once the rules are gone, they are gone – whatever happens next is merely a matter of degree, not of kind.
.
How would you feel if the country was not Honduras but the United States and the president defying the Supreme Court and Congress with an unconstitutional referendum to give himself an extra term was George W. Bush?.
.
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:29 am
zen, poor argument on several fronts. In terms of rule breaking, Jaywalking and murder are matters of degree also. Commission of the former does not justify someone else doing the latter. Zelaya’s rule breaking was asking the public a non-binding question. I find it very strange how this could be unconstitutional in the first place (I question the legitimacy of the unconstitutionality), but even if it is, the prospect of the public being asked or answering a question does not justify a military coup against an elected government. (Of course, it may justify it to people who are desperate for the public’s answer to never be heard and don’t care how many rules they have to break to make sure it never is.)
As to Bush, I would think if Bush was staging a non-binding referendum about term limits I would think he was being kind of silly. The US Constitution has a procedure for changing term limits, while the Honduran constitution blocks any ways to change it. OTOH, if the SCOTUS declared Bush’s silly referendum unconstitutional I would consider that odd and wonder why it would be. If the SCOTUS then issued an order for the Pentagon to kidnap Bush, remove him from office and deport him to Canada, I’d think the SCOTUS had just staged a coup and that they should be deposed from office and put on trial before a legitimate court.
Steve:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I find it interesting that the incident has been condemned by every government, including the USA while the few Hondurans I have read anything from seem to be in favor of the removal. My research and reading so far has me in the same corner as Zenpundit.
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
"…the few Hondurans I have read…"
Can’t argue with the power of anecdotal evidence. Ever heard of sampling error Steve? Would this be the few Hondurans running the coup you’ve seen quoted in the press, and those who post on English-speaking political blogs? Couldn’t be an bias there.
Some pretty strong evidence about what Hondurans in general might think can be inferred by the actions of the two sides here. One side was determined to hear the Honduran public answer a poll question. The other side was determined that their answer never be heard, so determined that they resorted to force and a coup de tat to prevent it from being heard. It seems pretty safe to infer from this what the answer was.
zen:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
"zen, poor argument on several fronts. In terms of rule breaking, Jaywalking and murder are matters of degree also. Commission of the former does not justify someone else doing the latter. Zelaya’s rule breaking was asking the public a non-binding question. I find it very strange how this could be unconstitutional in the first place (I question the legitimacy of the unconstitutionality"
.
Except we are not comparing jaywalking and murder John, we are comparing a president determined to act illegally for his own self-aggrandizement and political power and his opponents who removed him from office for doing so, after going through the constituted legal process which Zelaya defied. Being elected once does not make a person King. References to "the people" or what they supposedly will want does not trump the actual constitutional rules and laws – that is a magic cloud designed to justify whatever it is the Left wishes to do at any given moment. It’s a specious argument.
.
Again, I suggest your only interest here is that Zelaya is a leftist. If he was a traditional, rightwing, caudillo, I doubt you would be hee in my comment section engaging in special pleading on his behalf.
Daniel McIntosh:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the American military were faced with the choice of following the orders of the Commander-in-Chief or their oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. I hope we never find out.
Daniel McIntosh:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Actually, the Honduran constitution (1982) was amended seven times by the National Congress in its first ten years. But it specifically prohibits changing the rules for the amendment process, the maximum number of terms, and prohibition from re-election. Considering Honduran history, it makes a lot of sense.
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
"after going through the constituted legal process which Zelaya defied"
Give me a break zen. Summarily kidnapping and exiling the president and installing a dictator while waving around a fake resignation letter is not any legitimate process. You can just say you’re a right wing coup apologist and be done with it. Transparent lies won’t convince anyone (except maybe yourself). At least this event seems to keep revealing you guys for exactly what you are. That may be one silver lining to all this.
"Being elected once does not make a person King."
Nor does a non-binding poll question that allows the public to say what they think on a matter of public policy. Your ridiculous hyperbole gives away the emptiness of your propaganda.
"References to "the people" or what they supposedly will want does not trump the actual constitutional rules and laws"
They do in a democracy. In democracies people can ask questions of the public without being kidnapped and they can even change the constitution when the people want to do so. Constitutions in democratic countries have methods by which to change their provisions and doing so is determined by the level of public support (what the people want). Honduras is clearly not such a government and you and your friends leading the coup are determined that it stay that way (and here determined that nobody be allowed to hear the public even say what they want, obviously because it is not what the coup wants).
zen:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Actually, the shill for dictatorship is you John. You came here to defend Zelaya’s power play because you like left wing authoritarianism. Why not just conduct an opinion poll ? Because Zelaya wants to change his country’s constitution to increase his personal power. It is pretty cut and dried. He gambled for power and lost and you are unhappy about it.
zen:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Note: if you put in two or more links, comments are held for moderation due to spam filtering.
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The lies you have to tell yourself zen are large and obvious. It’s sad. Why do i get the impression that this could have happened yesterday in Equador or Bolivia or anywhere else where a president was using the "chavez play book" (being a leftist, winning elections and holding popular referendums about changes to public policy) and you’d be on here cheering on a military coup, lying in its support, and smearing people who oppose it, like you’ve done above? Oh right, because you leave that unmistakable impression.
zen:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
This ain’t Z Magazine here John, your attempts at reframing my argument into something it was not doesn’t hold water any more than your insults do or pretending that what Chavez has constructed is anything other than a personalist dictatorship in the making.
purpleslog:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Josh: "Your ridiculous hyperbole…" heh that made me laugh. Most likely though, no thtey way meant readers of this post.
Duncan Kinder:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
You cannot seriously condone a coup de.
Like it or not, Chavez is a democratically elected leader who is responding to perceived needs in Latin America. Yes, he is bad for American corporate interests and – since the collapse of the Soviet Union – we do need excuses to justify the military industrial complex.
But to support a coup in order to fight a "dictatorship" is doubletalk.
johnboswell:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
"or pretending that what Chavez has constructed is anything other than a personalist dictatorship in the making."
Gee, it’s been "in the making" for a long time. Why is he taking so long? Somehow, they’re still a democracy while Honduras is already an actual dictatorship in just a day (not a mere "dictatorship in the making", which seems to be a speculative ideological-partisan prediction commonly used to justify actual military coups and actual dictatorship by the partisans making the prediction.)
In any case, you’re the one obsessed with Chavez. You seem to have such a mania about him that you go off supporting anything against friends of his. He seems to have many friends who do one thing or another similar to something he’s done, so you may have to invent many ways to support all kinds of coups and dictatorships in the future. But no matter, just speculate that whichever friend of Chavez gets targeted next that he was a "dictator in the making in the making", like Zelaya apparently, moving closer to being like Chavez who’s moving closer to being like a dictator. Then you can certainly justify more actual miitary coups and actual dictatorships to foil the other dictatorships you chose to speculate too.
Duncan Kinder:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Of course, the real issue, with respect to this matter, is how the Mexican drug cartels are going to exploit this current disorder in order to transform Honduras into a narco state.
Lexington Green:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Looks like Obama is going to intervene and save Zelaya’s ass.
.
He likes Chavez and those sorts of leaders.
.
Funny how none of Obama’s supporters are talking about our now fabulous relations with Europe. Obama has managed to make nasty with our special friends in Europe.
.
The Ds are looking to repeal the 22nd amendment.
.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.j.res.00005:
.
Obama can be president for life, like Mugabe.
Eddie:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I am bothered about this by the opposition to it from all OAS leaders. I take it that President Calderon of Mexico is not a "Uribe" type who is interested in expanding his power by staying in office for an extra legal amount of terms and he is certainly no friend of the dictator for life Chavez. Many pro-US countries in the region not in Chavez’s orbit oppose this move by the military and its allies in the legislature.
B. Could it be that Obama is simply avoiding an anti-US backlash in the region by taking a strong line now against the actions of the military while manuevering to be the middleman in an eventual deal in a few days/weeks that mollify Zelaya’s supporters and his ascendant opponents? Someone in the region has to be the adult here to force powersharing or legitimize criminal charges against Zelaya (if there are any forthcoming), and I would still prefer it be the US (or at least Brazil) rather than a true outsider like China, Russia or the UNSC.
The fact they did everything done normally in a coup while doing it in the name of upholding the law does not make it a coup or make it right. It does make it suspicious in the eyes of the region and the world, and I can’t see how the US could benefit from poisoning the water for reapproachment with Latin American countries after decades of sometimes failed policies that have caused relations to take a severe dip in recent years by openly supporting what was done.
Perhaps better to condemn now and compromise later?
johnboswell:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:04 am
new Honduran dictatorship starts attacking the press:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55S5W120090629
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:08 am
John – how’s freedom of the press doing in Venezuela?
.
http://www.cpj.org/2009/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2008-venezuela.php
.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,FREEHOU,,VEN,4871f63fc,0.html
.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/23/venezuela-media-law-undercuts-freedom-expression
.
Not so hot, it would seem.
.
hi Duncan,
.
I’ve been reading your comments at Global Guerillas and elsewhere for a few years now and I know that you’re adept enough an observer to recognize patterns of political behavior and centralization of unchecked power. So the only question really is if you think what Chevez has done and is doing in Venezuela is acceptable and not whether or not he’s doing it. Chavez is quite candid about his political goals and accomplishments and clear in his threats to his political opposition.
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Hi Eddie,
.
You asked a couple of questions:
.
"Could it be that Obama is simply avoiding an anti-US backlash in the region by taking a strong line now against the actions of the military while manuevering to be the middleman in an eventual deal in a few days/weeks that mollify Zelaya’s supporters and his ascendant opponents? "
.
It could easily be possible. Is it worth Obama’s political capital to be President Clinton to Zelaya’s Aristide? He has a lot on his plate right now and the the US has not actually made any substantive changes in US policy toward Honduras or implied that it will, despite much diplomatic gobbledegook. It may be a show to deflate Chavez’s claims of a nonexistent imperialist yankee plot. Or Hillary, who is jockeying for more power and authority in administration foreign policy making, may see Zelaya as her hobbyhorse to ride. Not sure how this will unfold.
A.E.:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:31 am
I think Eddie’s explanation is most plausible. This conserves US power and prevents Chavez from making hay out of this.
It would seem that this government cannot survive without any regional legitimacy. The officers involved are going to have to fall on their swords once Zelaya is reinstated.
Duncan Kinder:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:01 am
So the only question really is if you think what Chevez has done and is doing in Venezuela is acceptable and not whether or not he’s doing it. Chavez is quite candid about his political goals and accomplishments and clear in his threats to his political opposition.I have problems with Berlusconi in Italy.That does not mean I would seek to overthrow him.
A.E.:
June 30th, 2009 at 8:19 am
As I said on Twitter, I wonder if this means that Ray-Ban sunglasses are going to come back in style again. But being the stylistic trendsetter that I am, I’m already been wearing them. I lack the other two parts of the ensemble: the "El Jefe" hat and pipe. And I don’t think I can talk for two to three hours at a time. Too bad.
joey:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
What is the International Left? do they have an email address LOL
johnboswell:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
zen: "how’s freedom of the press doing in Venezuela?"
Keep digging the whole zen, keep digging.
Strange to shift to Venezuela in the first place, but nevertheless:
In your links we get "intolerance" and "unfounded government accusations" against the press, i.e., words. And one station is denied a renewal of a broadcast license, has to broadcast on cable instead. A diverse and highly critical press continues to broadcast freely across the country.
Zen: "This is outrageous! A dictatorship! No press freedom!"
Meanwhile, the Honduran dictatorship starts physically attacking journalists and broad media who aren’t in their pocket, and imposes a "media blackout", closing down most of the country’s media and blocking international media, leaving "few television and radio stations still operating" to play soap operas and cooking shows.
Zen: "Meh…."
Lexington Green:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Obama is salvaging the sitation for Zelaya.
.
Figures.
.
Chavez Playbook May Yet Succeed.
democratic core:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Perhaps we can get the Honduran Supreme Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Michael Bloomberg. I don’t see how Zelaya did anything different from what Bloomberg has done, except that Bloomberg seems to be getting away with it.
Steve:
June 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/manuel-zelaya-vows-to-ret_n_222897.html
Zelaya vows to return to Honduras
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
John, you are blustering now. Or perhaps you are simply too lazy to actually have read the links you have described as examples of "intolerance" and "unfounded government accusations against the press". Here’s some excerpts:
.
" ….series of violent attacks, including the killing of a newspaper executive, fueled concern among journalists. On June 3, Pierre Fould Gerges, vice president of the Caracas daily Reporte Diario de la Economía, was shot to death by unidentified gunmen. Giselle Suárez, a lawyer for Reporte Diario de la Economía, told CPJ that several senior staff members had received telephone and e-mail death threats since June 2007. Investigators had not publicly cited a motive for the murder by late year. The newspaper’s editorial pages had been tough on government corruption."
.
"Marcano, a radio host and columnist, was shot dead by unidentified attackers on September 1, 2004, in the Monagas capital of Maturín. Marcano had hosted the daily radio show “De Frente con el Pueblo” (Facing the People) on Radio Maturín, and written the weekly column “Sin Bozal” (Without Muzzle) for the Maturín-based daily El Oriental. Marcano aggressively denounced drug trafficking and police corruption in the area. At the time of his murder, he was also a municipal councilman for the regional political movement."
.
"Globovisión was the target of a violent attack in September, when a group of people tossed tear gas canisters at its offices. The assailants left fliers declaring the station a military target. The fliers, signed by the pro-government group La Piedrita, said the network would be held responsible if Chávez were harmed or a coup attempted, according to a transcript published in the national daily El Nacional. Minister of Interior and Justice Tarek El Aissami said the attack was related to the broadcaster’s supposed involvement in a conspiracy to oust Chávez from office; Globovisión General Director Alberto Federico Ravell denied such involvement."
.
"The legal environment for the press remains poor. The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, signed in December 2004, contains vaguely worded restrictions that can be used to severely limit freedom of expression. For example, the law forbids graphic depictions of violence between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. on both television and radio. Supposed violations of this act were among the reasons given for the nonrenewal of RCTV’s license. In March 2005, the penal code was revised to make insulting the president punishable by 6 to 30 months in prison. Furthermore, comments that could "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" are subject to one to three years in prison as well as a severe fine. Inaccurate reporting that "disturbs the public peace" carries a prison sentence of two to five years."
.
Sounds not far removed from what happens to critical journalists in Putin’s Russia. Though, I grant you, Chavez having media critics murdered and threatening to imprison them does display a certain kind of "intolerance" in a broad sense of the term.
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Hi democratic core,
.
Not familiar re: Bloomberg – could you post a link on this ?
Daniel McIntosh:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Bloomberg doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Honduran court. ; )
Actually, it looks like both sides have good points. That’s what happens in a constitutional crisis. And when you press for a referendum to rewrite a constitution when the constitution specifically bans that mechanism, you have a constitutional crisis.
Both presidents are members of the Liberal Party. Both have long records in civilian government. The new guy was the head of the Congress, not the military. A presidential election is scheduled for November (although there are elections and there are "elections").
As for support from other States, governments are usually more interested in maintaining stability and avoiding precedents that might be applied to themselves. At the time of the action (note how I avoid legal terminology) the Honduran Supreme Court announced "Today’s events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law." If the court authorized the action the court established for itself a position in the chain of command–something that the US doesn’t support, and neither would most other executives. If the court responded to pressure from the military (of which I have no evidence), that would clearly be invalid.
In a perfect world, the president would have obeyed the court and saved everyone a lot of trouble. Or he could have been impeached, which is what the Congress (dominated by opponents) was moving to do. What happened was the court ordered the military to block the election, the military confiscated the ballots, the president fired the head of the military (always a dangerous move in a crisis) and marched in with supporters to take back the ballots.
It looks like everyone was in too much of a hurry to wait and allow the process to work itself out. But technically, IF the court has the authority to block an election (yes) and IF it can give a direct order to the military (which it claims), the law seems to be on the side of the court. If the court doesn’t have that authority, it can be impeached by the Congress.
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Nicely summarized Daniel!
johnboswell:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Zen keeps digging the whole:
In venezuela a journalist is shot by "unidentified gunmen", and "a group of people" tossed tear gas at a media outlet. The articles do not even allege let alone prove that these were government actions. Then there’s a law that "contains vaguely worded restrictions that can be used…" to possibly do something bad in the future if it is abused. So you cite attacks on the press by private citizens and not the government, and then a speculative attack on the press by the government which the government might possibly do in the future if it chooses to abuse a vague law.
By contrast, the Honduran junta itself is right now physically attacking journalists and actually shutting down domestic and international media to impose a comprehensive media blackout an all except those few outlets that are in its pocket. What I said stands. Press freedom is quite alive in Venezuela, unlike under the Honduran dictatorship you’re cheerleading for (as if trying to shift the issue to Venezueala were not fallacious evasion to begin with).
democratic core:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
In 1993 and 1996 there were referenda in NYC establishing term limits for all City officials. Members of the NYC Council, who fit my definition of "the hard-core unemployable", always hated this. In fact, this was the reason why there were 2 referenda – because City Council members desperately wanted to get rid of the term limits, but they passed overwhelmingly both times. Bloomberg announced earlier this year that he wanted to run for a third term as Mayor if the term limits law was changed. Lo and behold, the City Council now announced that it had "legislative authority" to get rid of the term limits without a new referendum, and the Council promptly voted to abolish them. Soon thereafter, Bloomberg announced that he is running for a third term, and he and the leaders of the City Council endorsed each other. Bloomberg (he runs as a Republican but that is meaningless) is quite the media darling in NYC because (a) he owns a big chunk of it; and (b) the NYTimes wants to keep him happy as a potential white knight if Murdoch ever made a takeover attempt. I know you Chicago folks think you have the market cornered on dysfunctional government, but I think NY has you beat by a mile. Here are some links: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_mayor_bloombergs_aides_plotting_path_aro-2.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
zen:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Much thanks, DC. I will check out the links in a sec.
.
John,
.
Let’s see:
.
"In venezuela a journalist is shot by "unidentified gunmen", and "a group of people" tossed tear gas at a media outlet. The articles do not even allege let alone prove that these were government actions"
.
I see, it is a rare species of chance that causes "unidentified gunmen" and violent mobs to fall on critics of Hugo Chavez! You would think that random events might strike more widely in demographic terms.
.
"then a speculative attack on the press by the government which the government might possibly do in the future if it chooses to abuse a vague law"
.
Not speculation John. The law specifies prison terms for "insulting" Chavez, as determined by his handpicked appointees.
.
"as if trying to shift the issue to Venezueala were not fallacious evasion to begin with)."
.
Read the title of my post John. In fact, read the post. Venezuela was part of my original argument. As for your tu quoque, Honduras is descending politically as a direct result of the crisis Zelaya set in motion by repeatedly defying the Supreme Court and violating the Constitution. As I said before, breaking rules is a bad precedent because your opponents will follow suit.
johnboswell:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
"I see, it is a rare species of chance that causes "unidentified gunmen" and violent mobs to fall on critics of Hugo Chavez!"
What the heck is this suppose to mean? The attackers were probably supporters of Chavez, but so what? That doesn’t make it government censorship or repression. It makes it some nut acting out. You’re trying to equate this with the Honduran junta closing down all the media and attacking journalists. And your claim of "Chavez having media critics murdered" is a delusional fantasy.
"Not speculation John. The law specifies prison terms for "insulting" Chavez…"
It specifies a prison term for "insulting" any officials. But how many people are actually serving a prison term for "insulting Chavez" or any other official? Zero. You’re talking about a theoretical punishment which is not being meted out to anybody for violating a law which has yet to be applied and whose meaning in practice has yet to be interpreted by courts. As such your claim that Chavez is "jailing critics" is a speculation of yours about a possible future abuse of a vague law that might allow such an abuse if it winds up being interpreted as allowing it. I don’t like that law either, but that is hardly similar to the actual attacks on the press in Honduras that I cited and which you’re trying to evade, for obvious reasons.
"Venezuela was part of my original argument." – Yes, i noticed. And you keep trying to turn everything back to Chavez, Chavez, Chavez all the time to evade the inconvenient facts of what’s going on with this coup you’re supporting. You’re apparently obsessed with the guy. I noticed a funny article today which seems quite apt:
Chávez Derangement Syndrome…
Reasonable people can agree to disagree on how favorably or negatively they view Chávez, but when he becomes an obsession, the determinative factor on viewing events in other lands, that’s just plain crazy. It is Glenn Beck crazy. And today, regarding a different country, Honduras, Chávez Derangement Syndrome is being manipulated to justify a bloody coup d’etat.http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ch%C3%A1vez-derangement-syndrome
Lexington Green:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Good assessment of the situation:
.
http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-coup-and-great-south-american.html
tdaxp » Blog Archive » What is happening in Honduras?:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:03 am
[…] reading reactions at Catholicgauze, Coming Anarchy, Half Sigma, and Zenpundit, and following the news in China Daily, I am confused why the United Nations, President Obama and […]
Steve:
July 1st, 2009 at 8:58 am
Great rumblings in Honduras. the OAS has “ordered” the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court, military and liberal party to reinstate Zelaya. He is supposed to return tomorrow. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_honduras
toto:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Right now, we can’t really estimate the significance of the Honduran army’s actions. It depends entirely on what will happen in the future. If they eventually relinquish power and free elections are held, then we are indeed in a Turkey-like situation (the army intervenes to check to a power-grab from the current leader). Alternatively, if they cling to power and turn the country into an old-style South American military dictatorship, then the coup will just be that – a coup.
Right now, we don’t know enough to judge one way or the other.
Thoughts On Obama & Honduras « Hidden Unities:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
[…] @ Coming Anarchy ZenPundit TDAXP Catholicgauze Jonathan @ Chicago […]