Top Honduran Military Lawyer: Coup Was Illegal

Today's Miami Herald, published an interview with Honduran army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza who is the first top military officer in Honduras to admit that last Sunday's coup was illegal. While he goes on and on about how he can't stomach leftists here, and leftists there, he also admits, kind of in a Col. Nathan R. Jessep fashion, that the Honduran military made the decision to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office and then tried to create the appearance of legality (which also indicates some kind of collusion from the other constitutional powers in Honduras). From the Miami Herald:

"In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.

It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''

Now that the jig is up, it's time to address the abysmal performance of the U.S. mainstream media which, while condemning the coup for the most part, has also been promoting the falsehood that President Manuel Zelaya was abusing his constitutional powers in a manner aptly exposed by John Nichols in The Nation:

"Outside of an Orwellian novel, or the mid-day slot on talk radio stations, some basic principles still apply:

Getting elected. Organizing referendums. Proposing constitutional amendments. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing democracy.

Kidnapping the president. Installing an unelected strongman. Suspending civil liberties. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing a coup."

Apparently, the U.S. mainstream media was caught in a bind on this. On one hand, they could not openly side with the coup given the immediate worldwide condemnation of the event (kudos to Obama on this for standing up for democracy). On the other hand, their visceral disgust for anything that is remotely on the side of the poor in America's backyard shows how old habits and allegiances are hard to break.

In today's edition of Counterpunch, George Ciccariello-Maher describes how the mainstream media paved the way for the coup, much like it did with the failed coup of 2002 in Venezuela, by distorting reality to fit Zelaya into their autocratic leftist strongman narrative:

"The faithful media sows the seeds: in both Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009, the national and international media prepared the ground for an eventual coup by distorting the truth and calling into question the democratic credentials of the president. In Honduras, this has taken the form of misrepresenting Zelaya’s constitutional proposal as a re-election bid, a line which was and continues to be shamelessly pushed in the media, when the referendum question had nothing to do with re-election at all, but was instead a completely legal mandate to transforming the existing constitution (itself a holdover from the far-right governments of the 1980s). Some nominally of the left repeated this tasty morsel of misinformation, while Fox News’ Shep Smith argued today that not only had Zelaya sought to extend his term, but to do so would have been “treasonous” (an interesting perspective on constitutional amendments, to say the least)."

(picture source)

Honduras and the Irrationality of Fear

The coup defenders are afraid, they say, of Honduras becoming another Cuba, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, of losing their “freedoms” and their “democracy.” But yesterday, in one fell swoop their leaders erased those very freedoms, atop all the other ones they’ve already burned alive - freedom of the press, freedom to elect their own president, among them - and buried democracy with it.


The Micheletti regime in Honduras announced yesterday evening that the congress had passed a decree suspending all constitutional rights in the country indefinitely. This means the military can enter homes without warrants, detain anyone with no notice or justification, prohibit all public gatherings, such as marches, rallies, protests or meetings, and maintain censorship of the media. Due process rights are also suspended as are all other civil and political rights.

In the meantime, some American expats in the diving community on the Bay Islands, continue their irresponsible tacit endorsement of the coup while minimizing the current state of emergency:

"No worries, all is well in paradise. The curfew has permitted some to actually get a little more sleep. Utila was wonderfully quiet last night after 10:00."

I guess there is no need for civil liberties in paradise, since God is good and just.

According to Honduras' El Tiempo, the following constitutional guarantees have been suspended:

* Article 69, which guarantees the personal freedom.

* Article 71, which states that no one can be detained or held incommunicado for more than 24 hours without an arrest warrant.

* Article 78, which guarantees freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

* Article 81, which states, "Everyone has the right to free movement, to leave, enter and remain in national territory."

El Tiempo reports that with the aforementioned guarantees suspended, "no one can hold meetings, neither public nor private, be it in the streets, in churches, in their own homes, or in union or guild halls."

Anyone planning to travel to Honduras in the near future, should think long and hard about the risks involved.

(photo source: AFP - Orlando Sierra)

Behind the Honduran Coup

An excerpt of a thorough analysis of the current situation in Honduras.

Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal

by Alberto Vallente Thoresen

Source: Counterpunch

Photo by: Eduardo Verdugo

"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."

Military Coup in Honduras

As a diver, I wonder what will be of the Bay Islands with this military coup in Honduras. Some American expats there, are already sounding like the character Hyman Roth in the movie The Godfather:

"[I]t looks like they got rid of a Chaves [sic] wannabe....and if so good for them".

"The military intervened to impose the rule of law just clarified by their supreme court and congress. Hats off to them..."

With such comments, no wonder people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have an easy time fomenting anti-American sentiment in the region.

While I do understand that divers are generally wealthy people, I would also like to believe that they are people with some kind of sensibility toward the environment, the rule of law, and the planet's overall well being. But I guess this is an overly romantic view of the diving community.

The reality, as it seems to transpire from comments such as those above, is that by selfishly aligning themselves with the local wealthy ruling elites, Americans expats keep reinforcing the notion that when it comes to Central America, the United States care more about hegemony than the rule of law.


(source)

I was in Roatan in 2007, and I have seen some of the abject poverty that the locals live in. While there is something to be said about tourism bringing cash to the Bay Islands, it is also true that most of the money does not trickle down to the local Hondurans. Most dive resorts are foreign (i.e. American) owned, and they operate on a "all inclusive" model in order to shield tourists from the surrounding reality as much as possible.

Timothy Padgett has some interesting comments in regard to the current military coup on Time Magazine's website:

"[W]hen soldiers in Latin America haul a democratically elected president out of his palace and into exile, the U.S. has no choice in this day and age but to roundly condemn it. Not just to throw Washington's hemispheric antagonists off base — but to keep the region's military troglodytes from making a comeback."

For a while, I had been planning a return trip to Roatan, plus Utila and a side trip to the mainland to see the Mayan ruins in Copan, for 2010. But as things stand right now, it doesn't look like this trip will be happening until there is some return to normalcy in Honduras.

Give the People What They Want: Noam Chomsky on the Heathcare Hold Up

As usual, Noam Chomsky is right on the money: health care reform in America is starting to become a possibility mostly because a sector of concentrated capital is beginning to push for it. The manufacturing sector, such as GM, is getting killed by the rising cost of health care so finally, there is some interest in reforming the system on Capitol Hill.

Never mind that the vast majority of the people have been wanting a single payer health care system for decades now. A recent poll showed how 72 percent of Americans want a public option and yet, there are some Democratic senators, led by North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan, who are so in bed with the vested interests in the health care industry, that are willing to go against the will of their own voters.

The time has come to let the US Senate know where the people stand. You can find out where individual Representatives and Senators stand on health care here. Let them know that health care is a human right, not a for profit business.