Our own taxpayer supported brutality school SOA is where some of these military are trained. We should close it, or are we going to keep training thugs now and forever?

I don't understand. The Supreme Court has said he can no longer be President. Yet you advocate installing him as President. How is that adhering to the rule of law?

And do you really think once he's back as President he will allow himself to be prosecuted?

Didn't we try something like this with Chavez, resulting in another dictator for life?

Kevin, they were following the law. The Supreme Court asked the military to remove Zelaya from power, and they did. End of story - it's not like he has a trial or anything, and they had good security reasons for getting him out of the country (witness the actions of his supporters, who went along with trying to get the illegal referendum passed).

The author here is part of a group of most reporters that keep calling this a military coup. From everything I've read, the military did not assert itself as the new government nor install one of their own as President. So how is this a military coup? The person selected to be the interim president was a duley elected member of the Congress after the arrest of the President. If the US President is arrested and incapacitated (along with the Vice President) our Speaker of the House takes over the presidency. How is this any different? It appears to me that the other two branches of government are protecting their system of government from the likes of leftist authoritarians who exploit the ignorance of the poor.

Regardless of what you may want to call it, it is not ok for armed forces to oust a President over a legal dispute (the referendum). Or can you imagine Obama being deported to Canada by the US Military over Healthcare Reform? At best, the propper way to proceed is an impeachment, not an expulsion.

I am no fan of Chavez and his buddies, but honestly, how can you oust a President under the excuse that you are "defending democracy from authoritarism"?? Isn't a forced renunciation every bit as authoritarian as Zelaya's attempts to reform the Constitution? It just makes no sense.

I am not saying Hondurans should just tolerate Zelaya's illegal actions and let him do whatever he wants with the country's Constitution. I am just saying that you don't have to stage a coup in order to make democracy work! You can't violate the rule of law in order to enforce it.

Wouldn't it have been more democratic for the Supreme Court to impeach Zelaya, find him guilty, declare the Presidency vacant and have Zelaya removed from office and sent home? Why the expulsion? why the military? I am sorry, but all that just reeks of 1980s coups.

anyone that believe that Mr. Zelaya did not follow the law do not know how to read their constitution, the president can fired any one in the executive branch at will,that is what presidents do, Costa Rica were you were a politician is also an ungovernable country also.

Alexander Bowen

Kevin, from what I read in your article it truly shows you don't know the Honduras Law. And the real facts of what has happened here in Honduras.

The three powers of our democracy are: Legislative Power, Executive Power and the Judicial Power. None of them subordinated to another.

Manuel Zelayas ILLEGAL "poll" was based on an executive decree he created back in february where it stated that the POLL was non-biding to call upon the creation of a National Constitutive Assembly. BUT, Mr Zelaya had a little surprise for us he created a new Executive Decree number PCM-020-2009 published on June 25 on the Oficial News Paper La Gaceta where the name of the Decree is "Poll of public Opinion Calling National Constitutive Assembly". This shows he was acting ILLEGALLY. And shows he's lying to every nation in the world.

This is the legal basis for the Supreme COurt to act and remove him from his charge. Another completely erroneous idea is that the military acted alone, the fact is that the military and police acted together.

The bad thing in all of this situation is that you are only hearing Mr. Zelaya.

Why don't you come here and visit Honduras and observe that we are working, we are joyfull that Zelaya is gone. That democracy has prevailed.

He's lying to every nation in the world stating that people are manifesting in his favor. There where 300 persons called by Zelaya to manifest on the streets this perons that later became looters and broke into International franchises and supermarkets.

I can see some comments calling upon an impeachment. Our Constitution doesn't have a process for an impeachment to a President.

That's why we, the Hondurans living here say that there was no military COUP. A normal succesion of the power was made.

We call upon the countries to send their envoys to see the truth in Honduras.

Zelaya was democraticly elected in Honduras, the people of Honduras removed him.

Congress and Supreme Court defended our Democracy, from this tiran that wanted to become dictator.

The nations of the world should be applouding us because we denfended democracy. Today we the people participated in a big peacefull manifest on our central park, who asked for permits in their work, who sacrificed their vacation days, to show the world we accept Roberto Michelleti as the President of Honduras.

Thanks

Jose Conrado Osorio McCormick
Tegucigalpa, Honduras

That is the answer indeed
I am very happy to see that there are still people out there that are thinking straight. As you can see in the comments that are posted, most people do not really understand the reach and profundity of the political problem in my beloved Honduras. We had, in fact, foreseen these unfortunate events because the rumors of an outset were very strong, and the political polarization of the groups in struggle for power lead to believe that the only solution they would think of, was to strike the government by force. Many of my fellow professors at the university did not even dare to think something like this could actually happen, but what they were not counting on, is that most of the people in the congress have actually been educated in “La Escuela de las Americas” Their narrow minds could not perceive a North American Government that was not going to support their revolt, an action for which they have been long prepared to perform in case that it was needed, Still now, with the actual coming of events, many in Honduras believe that the American Government is behind all this secretly, and that ultimately they will come forward and support Micheletti, who “is defending the backyard of the United States of America” . Such are in the minds of politicians that have been in congress forever, that have never worked, and that government after government remain untouched in their seats of congress. They really believe that they will be able to convince the international community that what they did, was not an outset and that they will find the support they now desperately need. What you say in your article here depicts exactly what has happen an all Hondurans must understand that both groups have no shame, ethics or conscious of what they have done. President Zelaya is not popular because he has been a good president, if he holds some of the good thoughts of Hondurans today, is because of what has been done unto him. He is now more dangerous to democracy and has support of the international community. The opposing group formed, by the rich entrepreneurs, who care only about their deals and the laws to protect their deals, have done what would please them for decades, and cannot conceive a president that does not do what they mandate. These groups and Zelaya are both guilty of not respecting the law and both of them will be marked by history as people who thought were above the law. Both must pay a high price for what they have done. They have no respect for the very laws they create but force the people to live according to the law when is favorable for them.
As you propose, the solution must be political and if I may add, ethical. Zelaya must be in the country to find a solution for the problem he and Micheletti have both created, and then they should pay the price for what they have done according to the Law.

Jose:

There may be no impeachment mechanism in the Honduran Constitution, but I am pretty sure there is no "kidnap-the-president-and-throw-him-out-of-the-country" mechanism either, and that didn't stop the Supreme Court from inventing one... why couldn't the Supreme Court create an impeachment procedure that was more democratic?

I can understand why it is tempting to applaud what happened there, after all, you got rid of one of Chavez's minions! and I did get to see the massive demonstration in favor of Micheletti, yet that doesn't change the fact that what happened on Saturday was an institutionalized coup.

The correct way to proceed would be to let Zelaya back in and face trial. If you find him guilty of violating your Constitution, and if this violation can be used to legally vacate him -and I guess considering article 4 that would not be a problem- do so, and I will be celebrating with you and the rest of Honduras. But don't expect the world to understand that forcefully expelling a citizen from your own country is the democratic solution to an undemocratic President.

Kevin,

Thank you for expressing a constructive and well-considered opinion apart from the demands and accusations of both Zelaya's and Micheletti's supporters. I have seen fairly little public dialogue about possible compromise and resolution between the two factions, and I don't think we can expect significant progress until more people begin to follow your line of reasoning.

You point clearly to the need for justice to be served and for legal judgment to be passed on both sides:

If Zelaya must be prosecuted for his harebrained attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, then let the courts proceed as rigorously as possible. And the same applies to the coup perpetrators.

However, it is generally acknowledged that the Honduran Supreme Court was involved in the authorization/justification of the coup. I would imagine that if the Honduran judiciary system were to be the deciding body, Zelaya and his supporters would (understandably) cry foul. There is also a manifest conflict of interests in their passing judgment on the leaders of the congress and military that have publicly sought and used recent CSJ rulings as a justification for their actions. Is there some unbiased national or international court or legal institution that could pass a legal judgment? It would have to be an authority that would be respected and trusted by the bulk of the Honduran population and institutions.

This highlights one of the primary background issues that has been at play in this whole mess: the Honduran people's (often reasonable) lack of trust in their government. Those who objected to Zelaya's referendum didn't believe him when he claimed repeatedly that it wasn't about extending his term. Those who now oppose the Micheletti government claim that that there have been violations of free press along with disinformation campaigns and scare tactics. They also claim stridently that the letter of resignation was fraudulent. Do you have any thoughts about this pervasive and perhaps well-earned public distrust or its influence on possible resolutions?

On a more optimistic note, while I don't really know how your suggestions would be implemented, I do think that a fair, transparent legal examination of both sides with adequate and appropriate penalties for wrong-doing would probably foster some good faith among the mainline elements of Honduran society, which in turn would be very helpful in strengthening a legitimate democracy in the future.

Thank you again for your insightful note.

I'm not sure how the reinstatement of Zelaya would look like in Honduras. Yes, there are 5 months to go until we have the national general election, and 7 months until his term officially ends. However, his governing style is one that disregards the law, institutions, due process, rule of law and fairness.

I believe it would be completely painful for him to return to Honduras. I would be even more catastrophic for 7.5 million Hondurans having this man back in power: he would not desist of his plans to follow Chávez lead, a terrible and irreparable situation, indeed, considering he wants to make our dear country a socialist one.

We followed the rule of law in deposing Zelaya. Of course, it doesn't look appropriate to fly him at 6 a.m. to Costa Rica, still in his PJs. The alternative of detaining him and trying him wouldn't have worked, since his mob would've caused a bloodshed in Honduras.

As government leaders, there are things you have to do that are not necessarily in a legal manual. As such, you have to apply basic principles of political science, international relations, sociology and other disciplines that contemplate the proper course of action for bringing the best out of people and maintaining social peace. This is what was done in Zelaya's case and we do not regret it.

Int'l pressure to get him back in power is futile, considering that 70-75% of Hondurans do not want Zelaya back. Plus, our reasons for legally removing Zelaya trump any "principle" of foreign of affairs that is merely academic. We used real-world principles that work adequately with the looming crisis that Zelaya was creating.

Can we have a critical look at claims that Zelaya's referendum(s) would have extended his term?

As I understand the non-binding referendum question that was to be held this week, it would have asked if a question should be added to the November *Presidential* ballot on holding a National Constituent Assembly (a.k.a. "Constitutional Convention") to redraft the Constitution.

This doesn't make sense. On the same day a new President would be elected to succeed Zelaya. So, Zelaya would probably be out of office before the Assembly would even convene, or finish. He'd certainly be a lame duck.

Given this, how is Zelaya expected to prolong his stay in office when a successor has been elected? Is the accusation that he would depose the newly elected President? That he would run for re-election in November? How does this alleged scheme actually work and did Zelaya really lay it out publicly?

It seems to me many coup backers have accepted this accusation on faith, without looking more carefully and skeptically at the military's claims. Granted, I'm skeptical of after-the-fact excuses for military coups after all we've seen.

Sure would be nice to see this addressed!

http://faustasblog.com/
http://blog.aeortiz.com/
http://hondurans4democracy.blogspot.com/

I think this article takes a really superficial view of the situation. I was really pondering for about 10 minutes this weekend why in the world Clinton/Obama would oppose Honduran democracy like they did last week. I think it was because they had 3 options. Support Mel, Oppose Mel, say nothing. Though I am sure we (as the USA) would have preferred to speak truth to idiocy (aka, tell Chavez to shut up), doing so scores us no points in the propaganda war in Latin America. We tried when Chavez was briefly overthrown, and that only came back to burn us. So by supporting Chavez'z argument, we certainly don't make it any stronger. Had we came out in support of Honduras, we would have been painted as co-conspirators in a "coup" whether coup happened or not. Some days, realpolitik can be a bitter pill to swallow...

From http://faustasblog.com/?p=13854&cpage=1#comment-20871

"According to Article 239 [of the Honduras Constitution]: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform , as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” "

This should settle the argument of whether or not a trial for Mel was necessary.

Mr Casas has laid out so many falsehoods here, that one finds hard to decide where to start.

Zelaya was not testing any ideas regarding a second term. He was going to ask the Honduran people on June 29th if they would like to include a question in the Presidential Election of November 2009, in which they would vote yes or no to starting the process of writing a new constitution.
Nothing about re-election. In fact, a Constitutional Assembly takes months if not years, to come up with the new text, which is then approved or rejected by the people. Such has been the case in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
There was simply no possibility that Zelaya could run for office in November, since the candidates were established already, and the current constitution does not allow him to run.

Of all people, Mr Zamora should not be the one questioning leaders seeking re-election: he won the Costa Rican vicepresidency, by running on the ticket of former President, Oscar Arias.

Arias had been president in 1986-1990. The Costa Rican constitution clearly forbids re-election. Arias tried to get it amended by congress and failed. Then he went to the constitutional court, and his arguments were rejected. Then, in an unusual turn of events, judges that voted against him were replaced, and this time Arias got a favorable vote. To this day, article 132 of the Costa Rican constitution still forbids for anyone to go for reelection. This means that Arias is occupying his post illegally. Not that anyone cares.

Casas left the vicepresidency in 2007 in total shame. He was the author of an infamous memorandum in which he and Congressman Fernando Sánchez (Arias’ cousin) proposed President Arias with a series of “strategies” to win the 2007 CAFTA referendum. According to the memo’s authors, the referendum, just a few months ahead, was going to be lost by the Arias administration, unless a series of measures were implemented.

Casas talked about “stimulating fear” in the population, associating anti CAFTA groups with Chávez, threatening mayors and other public officials (“not one penny more”) if they lost the campaign in their districts. Arias acknowledged reading the memo, but did not make it public. It wasn’t until a University weekly published the leaked version, that all hell broke loose.

Casas, Arias and other members of the administration, used the most antidemocratic means, to win the CAFTA referendum. His tactics were so embarrassing that, even for an administration so tainted by corruption, it was too much.

Casas was forced to resign. Perhaps Brookings and Foreign Policy could warn readers on why Kevin did not finish his term.