Reply #17: The military coup was not legal. You know that, and you hope you can influence some slow people [View All]

[Judi Lynn]

to see it the way you want them to see it. They can find the truth for themselves with a little time invested in research.

Not everyone will take the word of filthy right-wingers on matters this important.

July 1, 2009

Behind the Honduran Coup
Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal
By ALBERTO VALLENTE THORENSEN

~snip~
In this respect, media coverage of the recent military coup in Honduras is often misleading; even when it is presenting a critical standpoint towards the events. Concentrating on which words are used to characterize the policies conducted by President Zelaya might seem trivial at first sight. But any familiarity to the notion of ‘manufacturing of consent’, and how slight semantic tricks can be used to manipulate public opinion and support, is enough to realize the magnitude of certain omissions. Such oversights rely on the public’s widespread ignorance about some apparently minor legal intricacies in the Honduran Constitution.

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable, but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to ’s events.” However, President Zelaya cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office.

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region.

More:
http://counterpunch.com/thorensen07012009.html

~~~~~~~~
Honduras: Lawyers Question Basis of Zelaya Ouster
Written by Jennifer Moore
Friday, 25 September 2009 06:26

Since June 28 when the Honduran military shot their way through the backdoor of President Zelaya's private residence, kidnapping and forcibly expatriating him to Costa Rica, the de facto regime has maintained that Zelaya's removal was a constitutional transfer of power. For its part, the Obama Administration has condemned the ouster, but stopped short of defining the events as a military coup. By US law, this would require the suspension of the majority of aid to the Central American country.

However, a preliminary report by an international delegation of lawyers that visited Honduras in late August affirms that a military coup is what took place. The report considers the lack of an independent judiciary in Honduras as part of the context in which this occurred and points to powerful economic and political groups opposed to social advances promoted by President Zelaya as the driving force behind the coup.

The report, drafted by members of the American Association of Jurists, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the International Association Against Torture, further states that the military overthrow was a clear violation of Honduras' 1982 Political Constitution. Among various constitutional articles that the report claims were violated includes Article 102, which states: "No Honduran may be expatriated nor delivered by the authorities to a foreign state." <1>

~snip~
Dangerous Territory: Constitutional Reform

The most immediate trigger for the coup was a non-binding, national opinion poll scheduled for June 28. It was decreed by Zelaya under the Citizens' Participation Law, notes the delegation report, and would have taken place the same day as he was ousted. Hondurans would have answered the following question: "Are you in agreement that during the 2009 general elections that a fourth ballot box be installed in which the people will decide whether to strike a Constituent Assembly? Yes/No."

According to the report, the opinion poll was a "determining factor" in the coup. They explain that "powerful economic and political sectors including those who control the Honduran media vehemently opposed the move and recurred to the courts and the legislature to put in motion a very accelerated lawsuit, lacking assurances of due process in order to justify actions without grounds against President Zelaya, who they intended to try." Other reforms Zelaya was enacting which enraged to the business class included the rise in the minimum wage, the exclusion of intermediaries from state fuels purchases and the decision to purchase oil from the cheapest provider - the Venezuelan oil company Petrocaribe.

The speed with which the Supreme Court processed legal measures to block the survey raised suspicions among the delegation. "In contrast to the speed with which they acted against the constitutionally elected President Zelaya, has not made any decisions with regard to any legal process since then - up until this report was drafted - to sanction those responsible for violations of the constitution and legal order ."

Furthermore, one delegation member comments, "the de facto government clearly avoided using its legal power to arrest Zelaya when he tried to re-enter Honduras, compounding the violation of rule of law and furthering the appearance that there is no basis for claims that Zelaya committed crimes justifying his removal from office and claims that he lacks support within Honduras."

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2132/1/