Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

by **John Schröder** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:37 am

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... ia-induced

Against Anti-Semitism: Right, Left, or Media-Induced

By Al Giordano

Anti-Semitism has historically fallen harder on Jewish peoples than against Semitic non-Jews, and its English-language use is commonly understood as anti-Jewish, which is what I mean when I use the term in this essay.

I try very hard to avoid touching what I call the “third rail” of international geo-politics in what I publish – specifically, the debates over Israel-Palestine – precisely because to do so, no matter what one’s position is, no matter how sensitively or not one offers an opinion, the entire matter has become akin to blowing on a gigantic dog whistle that brings out all the haters on all sides and makes rational conversation impossible.

I am also admittedly very sensitive to anti-Jewish slurs and other forms of anti-Semitism. I have high contempt for those like Iranian dictator [sic!] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who run around denying that the holocaust happened, while violently repressing civil resistance movements against their authoritarian regimes. Even though I am not Jewish, I take such attacks personally, as do many Jews and non-Jews alike.

Perhaps it is because I grew up in New York, where so many of my best and most worthwhile cultural influences were Jewish. Perhaps because when as an early teen the local Catholic Church officials kicked me out of the guitar group for the Sunday “folk mass” after they caught me teaching, ahem, unchristian songs to the other kids there, I was able to convince my mom to let me attend the Temple youth group instead. Perhaps because the director of that youth group, a heroic Jewish-American named Richard Zoffness, went to bat and fought and won his battle that I be allowed in that Temple youth group. That’s when I learned an important lesson in Jewish political concepts of solidarity, an example I strive to adhere to each day.

In that Temple youth group, I received benefits that would not have been available to me as a Catholic kid, including sex education classes at 13. In those formative years I marched down Central Park West in support of Soviet Jewry – the Jewish population in what is now known as Russia and surrounding countries – that, just like our anarchist forbearers, was persecuted so brutally by that government.

I’m a bit older now, but I still carry with me the understanding that the Nazi holocaust was the worst single atrocity upon the greatest number of people among all the horrible things that have happened in the time while anybody alive today was still alive.

And yes I know that capitalism is terrible and destructive, and there have been and continue to be other genocides - to say one was the worst is not to say that the others aren't also evil - and that it’s been no picnic to be Palestinian over the past century, or a member of many other national, ethnic, religious, racial or other groups either. Still, the Nazi holocaust and the systematic extermination of millions of people because they were of a certain faith is, to me, the single worst example of what mobs of people can be whipped up to support when blinded and manipulated by hatred and the ill urges to make scapegoats.

If you try to argue with me against that point, if you try to lecture me that any worse crime was committed over the past century, I will not take you seriously. I will not even apologize for not taking you seriously. My respect for you will probably lessen. Because I believe when something that terrible happens to so many people at the hands of others that, after all, were of the supposedly evolved European continent, that it is vital work to inoculate society against such a mass psychosis ever happening again. And that requires generations of education and of, in sum, rebuilding an entire culture around making sure that history shall not repeat itself, not against anybody, but specifically not against those and the descendents of those to whom it did happen, who bore the brunt of it for all peoples: Jewish peoples.

I know many other native New Yorkers and many from other places, and many Jews and non-Jews, who feel exactly as I do about that holocaust and the importance of two words: “never again.” Interestingly, all of us have very different opinions about Israel-Palestine and how to address that conflict. But we are united in making sure a mass violent psychosis such as that pulled off by the Nazis must never happen again.

And so when real anti-Semites run around saying things like "I believe it should have been fair and valid to let Hitler finish his historic vision,” I don’t care who it comes from – right or left – that guy is asking me to open up a big can of whoop-ass on him, because of the legitimate fear and trauma such statements cause good people, while also riling up other haters like him do do violence against Jews.

And sad to say, although Nazism itself is the pinnacle of right wing ideology, there are some confused and sick people who identify themselves as on the left who make statements like that. One who did make that exact despicable statement last week on Radio Globo in Honduras - a couple days before it was occupied and shut down by coup military troops (for reasons unrelated to Romero's statement, which the regime was not aware of until after it seized the station and its tape archives) - was its managing director, David Romero.

I reject and condemn Romero's words and him for mouthing them. If anybody ever said such a thing via this publication, he’d be fired in a New York minute.

If, as Romero did today in that AP story, that person apologized and said they didn’t mean what they said, I’d still fire them indefinitely while sorting it all out. And I’d tell that employee or freelancer or co-publisher that unless he was willing to now go, alone, to synagogues, temples or other gatherings of Jewish people and apologize face to face, and listen to everything they have to say to inform and educate him and express their legitimate horror over calls to violence like that, he wouldn’t have a chance at getting his job back.

In fact, here’s probably exactly how I would handle it: I’d call up some friends from a local Temple or Jewish organization and say, “It’s your call on whether you think this guy’s apology was sincere or not and whether you feel safe ever having him as part of this media again. Frankly, he creeps me out. But maybe you can educate him. If you're willing to try, I'll tell him he can only have a job back if you tell me he can. Otherwise, he's gone."

Mind you, I’m just saying how I would handle it at my own media organization. But if the owner of Radio Globo does something similar, he’ll get big applause from me, and from his other employees, many of whom have shared with Narco News their outrage and disagreement and embarrassment and feelings of betrayal caused by Romero’s statement. Nothing like that was ever said at Radio Globo before or since Romero did that. And people around the station have been in a state of shock over it, frustrated that he is their immediate superior and has tarnished its cause at the very moment that the station is fighting for its life against jackbooted coup regime censorship.

Thankfully, out of 469 co-publishers of Narco News, out of all of its diverse number of journalists and students and professors, nobody has ever written anything as stupid and hateful at this publication as what Romero said, and I hope that will always be the case.

But here is the other side of the dog whistle. There are others out there that look to pounce upon and exacerbate such legitimate fears and traumas every chance they get. And they are often over there on the right, trying to divide liberals and Jews, the left and Jews, because Jews have generally been more progressive than right-wing in most countries, and a vital part of most victorious progressive coalitions.

There has been a cottage industry in recent years trying to create fear of movements and individuals that are not, like Romero, harbingers of anti-Semitic thought, and that Jewish and other peoples would not be afraid of or distrustful of based on what they actually say or do. Rather, the cottage industry exists to distort their words, take them out of context, to try and smear them as something they are not: Anti-Semitic.

The dishonest manipulator that got this whole dog whistle blowing regarding Honduras was Miami Herald “journalist” Frances Robles.

In a September 24 story, headlined “They’re Torturing Me, Zelaya Claims,” Robles typed the following lead paragraph:

“It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and ‘Israeli mercenaries’ are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.”Normal journalistic procedure when lifting a sensationalist quotation like that reference to “Israeli mercenaries” in a first paragraph is to then, in a later paragraph, provide the full quote in its full context so that readers can judge for themselves what really was said.

Robles did not do that, which raised the first red flag about her intentions.

Asked six times by a reader, via email, to provide the full quote in its context, Robles kept replying via email to that reader with lengthy self-important defenses while still refusing to provide the exact quote from which she extracted the words “Israeli mercenaries" and put other words, not quoted, around them.

Narco News has obtained the full email exchange between Robles and that reader, in which Robles seems to confuse the reader’s request for the full quotation with a debate over whether Zelaya said the only two words she quoted from the undisclosed full statement:

“…anyone who thinks this was made up is obviously not with him, because he says it OVER AND OVER again. I can't explain why no one else reported it. I guess it sounded so off the wall other people chose to ignore it.”She then invokes the name of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - another Latin American leader that the cottage industry keeps trying to portray as somehow anti-Semitic, one that has joined delegations organized by Jewish organizations to concentration camp sites and who has prosecuted invaders of a synagogue in Caracas - and what she says is his support for her article. Robles wrote:

“Yesterday at a press conference in NY someone asked Hugo Chavez what he thought of the article and he said, "I send the Miami Herald reporter a big kiss for finally telling the truth."And then, either confused or trying to obfuscate, she ignores the request for the full quote and seeks to debate a different issue:

“I have been a journalist for 20 years and did not get where I am by making up quotes. I have nothing to gain from that.”Except perhaps front page placement of her oft-buried stories in the Miami Herald.

When the reader asked, again, for the full quote, Robles replied:

Narco News then wrote to Robles to ask for the full quote, which she has refused to disclose. But the question remains: If the Miami Herald reporter had the time to answer the reader in multiple emails about why she didn’t have the time to answer his question, doesn’t that seem a bit too cute by half? In much less time, she could have just answered his question!

What Robles did do, though, panicked after being informed that her simulation would reach these pages that have exposed so many US correspondents for their dishonest dealings in Latin America, and cost more than a few their sinecures, was contact aides to Zelaya asking them to confirm that he had used the term “Israeli mercenaries.”

Narco News has obtained copies of the Zelaya organization's email responses to Robles, telling her that he mentioned “rumors” of “alleged mercenaries” but never said that such “alleged” parties were responsible for the high tech sonic and chemical weapons used on the Brazilian Embassy, which was the untrue claim made in Robles’ September 24 story.

Like disgraced NY Timeswoman Judith Miller before her, Robles made light of a matter of chemical weaponry - in this case, against the Brazilian embassy, now confirmed by the government of Brazil and the United Nations - to try and portray Zelaya as somehow crazy because he was one of the victims of those now-documented chemical attacks.

It was the very next day after Robles blew the dog whistle that David Romero made his anti-semitic statements, barking to the tune blown by Frances Robles. Nobody at Radio Globo or anywhere else expected him to behave that way. But the sonic pitch of that kind of weapon unleashed that demon from him.

The other thing the aforementioned AP story, by Benjamin Fox, neglected to mention was that Zelaya had already condemned Romero’s words on September 29, when he issued a statement that said:

“Many people in society are wrong, including some of my opponents and also some of my supporters, falling victim to anti-Semitism,” said Zelaya in a public statement. “I reject all anti-Semitic postures and attacks and call on the Honduran people to do the same.”
Fox never even asked Zelaya for comment.

Fox was apparently ignorant that Zelaya was the elected Honduran president who appointed a Jewish-Honduran, Yani Benjamin Rosenthal, as his presidential chief of staff, Leo Starkman as his minister of foreign investment, Moises Starkman as his energy minister. And Zelaya put Jacobo Regalado Weitzembluth at the helm of the state owned telephone company, an institution now seized by military troops.

David Romero is a vicious anti-Semite that deserves contempt from you and me, and had been publicly rebuked by President Zelaya days before this matter became a media campaign in this "open letter" he released on September 29.

Mel Zelaya was attacked by such anti-Semites when he appointed so many Jewish-Hondurans to top positions in his government, in representation much larger than in the population at large.

You decide, kind reader, who are the anti-Semites here? And who is blowing the dog whistles to get them riled up and provoking fear and trauma.

What professional simulators like Frances Robles do to blow those dog whistles and rile up real anti-Semites like David Romero is beneath contempt, does not serve the eternal and just cause against anti-Semitism, and is intended to accomplish quite the opposite.

After all, the manipulation of mobs and generation of mass psychosis attempted by Robles was not something she invented, but, rather, the trademark of a certain evil holocaust and its propagandists not very long ago. When the dogs start barking, deal with the dogs, of course, but also look for the ones blowing the dog whistles.

by **John Schröder** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:00 pm

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... -long.html

Congress versus the Supreme Court (a long story)

The release just over a week ago by a US Republican congress member of a report wrongly characterized as by the Congressional Research Service caused excitement in Honduras, where it was portrayed as indicating that the US recognized the de facto regime's claim to legitimacy. It also sparked debate between coup apologists and opponents on the internet, proposing different interpretations of the report and, more significant, of Honduran legal and constitutional procedure. After much reflection, I have decided to post this contribution even though I am concerned that all of us have been caught up in a sterile discussion initiated by a badly researched, badly sourced Library of Congress Law Library report.

So for the record, a reminder: the Honduran Congress published, in its Decreto 141-2009, its own actual argument meant to legitimate its actions of June 28. No speculation by a US Library of Congress researcher, or for that matter any of us commenting now, replaces that primary source as the sole explanation of why the Honduran Congress thought it could remove President Zelaya from office and replace him with the head of the Congress at the time, Roberto Micheletti.

Post-facto "discovery" of other arguments that might justify their actions cannot substitute for this primary source, whether it is the invocation of Article 239 which has been thoroughly debunked, or the proposition by the Law Library of the Library of Congress of an "implicit" use of a power supposedly based in Section 10 of Article 205 of the Honduran Constitution.

Decreto 141-2009 cites Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 40 numeral 4), 205 numeral 20) and 218 numeral 3), 242, 321,322 y 323 of the Constitution. Period.

Based on those articles of the Constitution-- note the absence of either Article 239 or Article 205, section 10-- the Congress made three declarations.

In the first, they "disapproved" of the conduct of President Zelaya; and resolved to separar al ciudadano JOSÉ MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES del cargo de Presidente Constitucional de la República de Honduras ("remove the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales from the office of Constitutional President of the Republic of Honduras"). In the second numbered resolution, Congress "promoted" Micheletti to the office of the presidency for the remainder of President Zelaya's term. Finally, they specified that the two preceding points would become effective immediately on a two-thirds vote by Congress.

As Honduran Constitutional law authority Edmundo Orellana has noted numerous times, Congress has the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, and made an error in disapproving the president, not specific acts he performed; and furthermore, Congress has no constitutional authority to remove the President from office. Nor is there any Constitutional basis for "promoting" the President of Congress.

So that's all clear, right?

Congress based its actions on June 28 on two articles of the Constitution, one specifying what would happen in the event that a President was "absolutely" unavailable (e.g. due to death or disability; not due to illegal expatriation); and one that defined the order in which different government officials stood in line for the Presidency in the event of need.

But the Honduran Congress ignored the fact-- and it is indeed a fact-- that, when immunity to prosecution for high government officials was removed from the Constitution, the authority to prosecute officials for crimes, possibly culminating in removal from office, if guilt were proved after a trial, was reconfirmed as residing with the Supreme Court, which began such a legal process in response to the charges by the Public Prosecutor dated June 26.

Understanding this last point is important. Congress on June 28 not only violated the rights of President Zelaya; it mangled the separation of powers by usurping the rightful role of the Supreme Court.

And that was not the first time that the Honduran Congress had reached out to extend a claim over actions that are appropriately the business of the Supreme Court. While the researcher who produced the dreadfully flawed report for the Law Library of the Library of Congress did not produce any useful information about the constitutional basis for the actions Honduras' Congress took on June 28, she did draw attention to a particularly vivid illustration of a structural problem with Honduran governance under a Constitution that Costa Rican President Oscar Arias has now characterized as "the worst in the entire world".

The Law Library researcher claimed Article 205, Section 10, gave Congress the power to interpret the Constitution, and thus they must have been engaged implicitly, tacitly, without mentioning it, in interpreting "disapproval" as including "removing from office".

Here is the full version of that section of Article 205 as it stands today:

ARTICULO 205.

Article 205

[these last are the so-called set-in-stone articles.]

This language was not part of the original 1982 constitution. It was added by Congressional amendment proposed in 2002 (Decreto 276-2002), ratified in 2004 (Decreto 241-2003). This amendment was incorporated in the text of the Constitution with the publication on March 10, 2004, in La Gaceta of the decree ratifying the amendment, which was passed on January 20, 2004. It replaced an unrelated section of Article 205 (which enumerates the powers of the Congress) that had been removed previously.

This timeline needs to be considered in relation to a key Supreme Court decision of May 7, 2003. That decision declared unconstitutional the expansive authority the Congress had begun claiming to interpret the Constitution, on the basis that it violated the separation of powers. Under the opening articles of the Constitution, Congress makes laws and interprets what it meant when it made those laws; the Supreme Court, on petition, rules on whether those laws are unconstitutional or not. Congress cannot take over that power.

This court case was decided in the middle of the required process for establishing a constitutional amendment, which calls for the same amendment to be considered in two successive sessions of Congress, and passed in identical form by both sessions. Contrary to a claim made in multiple internet forums, the second Decreto did not add a clause about the set-in-stone articles, 373 and 374; that was already in the original version passed in 2002.

Most important for our purposes are the contents of the clauses defining general underlying principles ((clauses that start "Considerando", or "Considering"):

Considering: That in conformity with the Constitution of the Republic in its Article 205 numeral 1, there corresponds to the National Congress the attribution of creating, decreeing, interpreting, reforming, and abolishing laws;

Considering: That the Extraordinary Leaders of the Honduran people united in the National Constituent Assembly granted the power to reform the Constitution of the Republic to the National Congress, the Constituted and Ordinary Power, but following a more complex procedure than that for amending the ordinary laws: precisely for being the Constitution the work of the Constituent Power, they omitted, nonetheless, a proceeding for its interpretation.

Considering: That as our Constitution is rigid in the mechanisms for its amendment, it is logical that the legislative organ ought to follow the same orientation in the legislative technique of hermeneutic proceedings.

Considering: That the constitutional practice that now enjoys "the opinion juris" [norm of behavior], is considered among us, as a constitutional custom and being the constitutional custom is the most important direct or immediate source of Constitutional Law, after the Constitution itself, it is in order to elevate to the rank of written constitutional precept the referenced custom, through which the National Congress has been interpreting historically and systematically the clauses of the Constitution, through decrees approved in ordinary sessions with a certified vote of a two-thirds majority of the totality of its members, in a single legislature.

What these statements tell us is that Congress was making the claim that the Constituent Assembly had not been clear in 1982 about who was charged with interpreting the Constitution; that the Congress had a habit of discussing Constitutional interpretation ("hermeneutic" being the key word here, drawn from biblical scholarship, and meaning the process of interpreting a foundational document); and that Congress considered its customary practice the most authoritative way to ground law, outside the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Article 184 of the Honduran Constitution describes the Supreme Court as responsible for hearing and deciding on the unconstitutionality of laws. It specifies that the Supreme Court is the originary and exclusive source of authority on constitutionality.

What seems to be fueling the idea that this decision does not apply to the amendment that brought into being Section 10 of Article 205 is confusion about how constitutional law is put into practice. When the Supreme Court made their ruling in May 2003, Section 10 of Article 205 was not ratified; it did not legally exist, and the Supreme Court did not mention it in its sentence because it was not part of the constitution. But their ruling addresses the underlying constitutional principle.

Section 10 of Article 205 will not be removed from the Constitution until someone challenges it, or until it is used as the basis of a lower court decision that leads to Supreme Court review. But that does not change the fact that it is unconstitutional. The May 2003 ruling, like all Supreme Court rulings, is extensive. Under the Law of Constitutional Justice, Article 90 says "The sentence that declares the unconstitutionality of a legal precept, should also declare unconstitutional those precepts of the same law or of an other or others with which it has a direct and necessary relation". This is the idea that Supreme Court rulings, which are interpretations of the Constitution, establish precedents that apply to all other laws making the same or related claims.

We don't have to infer this intent, either: the Supreme Court made it crystal clear. Remember, they were acting after the first vote on Article 205, section 10, so while they could not rule on that as-yet nonexistent article, they could comment on the underlying constitutional argument, and they did so clearly, as reported in a previous post.

This sparked a conflict with Congress, which refused to publish the ruling in the case (although, as noted previously here and elsewhere, rulings come into effect immediately, unlike laws which must be published). A publication by the International Commission of Jurists briefly touching on this conflict has been cited by some of those insisting Congress does have a legal right to interpret the Constitution. But the key paragraph is either badly worded, or based on misunderstanding of the contexts of action by the Congress:

However, to eliminate all doubts, on 20 January 2004, Congress adopted Decree 241-03, ratifying Decree 276-02 of 8 August 2002, providing for a reform of Article 205 of the Constitution which gives Congress the explicit power to interpret the Constitution through a decree adopted with a two-thirds majority vote in a single legislature. (emphasis added).

"To eliminate all doubts" implies that the ratification was somehow an effective action taken in response to the Supreme Court ruling. That is not why Congress passed Decreto 241-03. They passed it to continue the normal process of ratifying the amendment they had already proposed, despite the Supreme Court ruling, because they were in open rebellion against the separation of powers. By continuing with the ratification as if there were no issue, they inserted the language into the Constitution (since Congress controls that document); but they did not make an unconstitutional section constitutional. They just made the document that is the Constitution a flawed text.

The Supreme Court still has the final word on the constitutionality of laws. The amendment ratified by Congress is based on precisely the logic that the Supreme Court rejected in May 2003. The International Commission of Jurists' reports, far from endorsing the legality of the Congressional erosion of separation of powers, are centrally concerned with the lack of indepence of the Honduran Supreme Court, which since 2002 has been appointed through a process dominated by the Congress itself.

A final point to consider in relation to the Library of Congress Law Library's miserable attempt to create a post-hoc justification for what the Honduran Congress did on June 28, is that Congressional procedures include declarations that justify specific actions. When the Congress is passing laws, for example, it routinely cites its constitutionally granted power to pass laws. If it had been basing its actions on June 28 on the contested claim to generally interpret the Constitution, it would have had to say so.

The three numbered points of Decreto 141-2009 are preceded by seven itemized general principles in considerando clauses. This is where the Congress cited specific articles of the Constitution.

(It is also here, by the way, that the one trace remains of their attempt to base their actions on a forged letter of resignation; the sixth of these reads Considerando: Que el accionar irregular del Señor José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, es suficiente motivo para que este Congreso Nacional proceda a reprochar su conducta, independientemente de la renuncia interpuesta al cargo para el que fue electo; "Considerando: that the irregular action of Sr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, is sufficient reason for this National Congress to proceed to reproach his conduct, independently of the interposed resignation of the office for which he was elected". The reason Congress refers to Zelaya throughout as "citizen" is because they were engaging in the fiction that he had resigned. That forged resignation is what made it viable for them to claim to be following the Constitution in "replacing" him.)

Congress has rarely claimed the power to interpret the Constitution in a "Considerando" clause. Decreto 169-86, which in 1986 undertook to interpret, among other things, some of the so-called "set in stone" articles, began by saying Considering: that in conformity with the constitutional antecedents that the Republic has had, there is imposed the necessity to correct, by means of interpretation, Article 373... This was the quite unusual situation of the beginning of constitutional rule of law under the 1982 constitution, when various gaps in the constitution were evident.

Seemingly similar, but actually quite different, are the many decrees in which Congress cites its constitutional authority to interpret laws in the "considerando" section, then in the decreto itself declares the constitutional basis for a law in the form of an "interpretation" of the constitution.

For example, Decreto 58-93, concerned with aspects of military administration, begins Considering: That the privative capacity to create, decree, interpret, reform, and abolish laws in a generally obligatory way pertains to the sovereign National Congress.

Congress here only references the power it has under the Constitution, which is to decree laws and to interpret them. It then goes on, in its Decree, to establish a law, starting in Article 1 with a declaration To interpret Article 90 of the Constitution of the Republic, in its second paragraph....

This is the kind of constitutional interpretation that is not controversial, since it is limited to explaining how specific aspects of the Constitution underwrite specific laws. Congress is the body charged with enacting laws, through which the Constitution is embodied. Congress expresses its understanding of the constitutional bases through laws.

But it is the Supreme Court that determines if the laws are constitutional, because it is the Supreme Court that has the general power to interpret the Constitution. Understanding this interplay is critical for anyone living under the kind of constitutional government embodied in the Honduran Constitution; it is in fact the way the US Constitution works as well.

There is no history of, nor basis for, an "implicit" exercise of interpretation of the Honduran Constitution by the Congress. The Decreto it issued on June 28 in fact is explicit about the bases the Congress claimed in law and in the Constitution. The Law Library of the Library of Congress is simply wrong.

We can debate whether legally, the power claimed by Congress to interpret the Constitution still exists, but we do not need to wonder if that was the basis of the actions of Congress. They did not say it was. Such a claim would have made their actions on June 28 vulnerable to legal challenge before the Supreme Court based on the history of declaring unconstitutional amendments claiming to grant this power, which defines the judicial branch, to the legislative branch.

That claim is itself the essence of usurpation of powers, and violation of the form of government. Ironically, those are two of the most serious charges leveled against President Zelaya by a Congress that has made a habit of trying to usurp the power of the judiciary. Ignoring a Supreme Court ruling; refusing to publish it in La Gaceta; proceeding with ratification of an amendment that embodied an already rejected unconstitutional claim; these are actions that demonstrate disrespect for the separation of powers, and undermine the rule of law.

by **John Schröder** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:07 pm

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/inde ... th_zelaya/

Honduras Dispatch: Interview with Zelaya

Terms Being Offered “Aren’t Sincere”

Tegucigalpa, Honduras – “It’s like being trapped in some kind of Neo-Nazi concentration camp,” said ousted Honduran President Mel Zelaya, during a cell phone interview on Friday afternoon. Mr. Zelaya was referring to conditions inside the Brazilian Embassy, where he’s been holed up for almost two weeks, after sneaking back into the country on foot. The president, known for his trademark cowboy hat and flamboyant mustache, said that the hundreds of soldiers surrounding the Embassy are very strict about how much food they allow into the building. “They also don’t let us have anything to read, or even important papers. And no visitors,” he said. “Only their people are allowed inside the perimeter … Our supporters can’t even come near the building.”

The rest of the country, like the deposed president, also remains under lock down. Friday saw another peaceful protest march dispersed by police, and unconfirmed reports that a teacher who had actively opposed the de facto regime was killed in an execution-style slaying. Civil rights, including freedom of the press and of assembly, were suspended last Monday, and the authorities have used their new-found powers to crackdown on the growing, pacifist anti-coup movement that swept the country in recent weeks. Independent media outlets have been shuttered, and soldiers and police ordered to break up peaceful marches and rallies. The troops have repeatedly fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and even live rounds into the crowds of peaceful demonstrators. Meanwhile at the Embassy, Mr. Zelaya reported that although the chemical weapons attacks against the compound ceased several days ago, the U.S.-developed sonic crowd-control device known as LRAD is still being deployed at irregular intervals.

“The machine is damaging our health,” said Zelaya. “They also try to jam our phone calls.” The quality of the audio signal fluctuated throughout our interview.

Despite the arrival, on Friday, of an Organization of American States envoy, and a flurry of rumors that mediators were engaged in diplomatic overtures, Mr. Zelaya indicated there has been little in the way of dialogue of between himself and Mr. Micheletti. “Their offers so far are unacceptable,” said Zelaya. “The terms they’ve proposed aren’t sincere,” he said. “It is a false dialogue… [Those of us in the Embassy] aren’t even allowed to be in contact with the rest of the country.”

Mr. Micheletti’s office did not respond to repeated requests for an interview, nor to e-mailed questions.

Zelaya was deposed by the military-backed regime in June, after he attempted to hold a public polling on the issue of constitutional reform. Since his surprise return to the country on September 21, scores citizens have been beaten and hundreds more detained illegally. The authorities, however, insist that the situation is under control.

“We police are very professional,” Inspector Rivera, of Tegucigalpa’s First Precinct, told me in his office, earlier this week. “Our conduct all depends on the behavior of those in the streets. If they push us – we’ll react!” he said, bouncing his palm off the table top. I had come to the station to inquire about a mass arrest the day before, during a police raid on a nearby agricultural center. I would be allowed to see the imprisoned farmers, Rivera told me, if I were willing to surrender my camera.

Speaking of the general censorship of the media in Honduras, Inspector Rivera said it was only a matter of perspective. “If they would just put on the right kind of news, the good news, there wouldn’t be any problem with them being on the air.”

In his own references to the de facto regime’s suspension of civil rights, President Zelaya cited grave concerns for common citizens. “In Honduras there is no longer separation of powers. No freedom of expression. No right to assemble. The only thing we have here now is brutal repression.”

Zelaya suggested that the best solution to the current crisis might be to give the people what they wanted in the first place: the right to convene a popular assembly, to discuss constitutional reforms that would allow a more participatory form of democracy.

“A constitutional assembly is the right of the people,” Zelaya said. “It’s not my idea. When the country decides the time has come, a legal solution [for reform] will be found.”

The president also made it clear that the movement against the coup should remain nonviolent, even in the face of increased aggression from authorities. “I am a peaceful man,” he said, “I came here to talk, not to start a war. I’m here to find a solution to the problem of popular sovereignty, and to resume my duties as president of the country.”

But Zelaya did admit that the current media censorship made it difficult for his supporters to organize. “We must struggle against them with other peaceful strategies, in the small towns and villages. Today alone there were two hundred rallies, all across the nation.” But Mr. Zelaya conceded that, in some form or another, political intervention was needed.

“I’m waiting for international pressure to incite a real dialogue,” Zelaya said, speaking calmly, but clearly working hard to hide his fatigue. “I am the president,” he said defiantly. “The one who is recognized by all the countries in the world. The only president chosen by the people of Honduras.”

Later on Friday, in a separate interview, one of the chief architects of the anti-coup movement, Rafael Alegria, echoed Zelaya’s assurance about the high levels of popular support.

“We’ll be in the streets again this weekend,” Alegria said. “Maybe in smaller groups than before, but still on a nation-wide level.” Alegria is the president of the prominent farmers’ union Via Campesina. “The Resistance,” he said, “will not be broken.”

Maybe not, but it is taking a nasty beating. According to the Committee for Human Rights in Honduras (CODEH) 46 people have been seriously injured by police or soldiers, during violent but one-sided clashes. Twenty-two of the 46 have received bullet wounds from armed officers firing into crowds of unarmed demonstrators. At least three people have died in recent days, which brings the death toll since the inception of the coup to 14. Dozens more anti-coup activists have been rounded up and detained, and will be charged with sedition.

“Everyone who lives here has rights – that’s why it is a free country,” Inspector Rivera said to me the other day in the First Precinct, before confiscating my camera and forbidding me to use a tape recorder when I went to view the prisoners. “This is a country of peace and tranquility,” he went on. “There is no repression here.” Then the Inspector led me through a locked door, into the interior. In the cramped compound behind the station, all 38 men were jammed into a primitive, unlighted holding cell that was built to house about a dozen prisoners. The heat and smell were overpowering, but the farmers put on a brave face. The men did have water to drink, but they wanted no food, as they were engaged in a hunger strike against their “illegal detention”. Despite the bravado, they seemed as isolated and trapped as the beleaguered president they support.

“Eat, or you’ll get weak,” Inspector Rivera said, kicking the iron door of the overcrowded cell, “Don’t say later that we didn’t give you food.”

One of the farmers – middle-aged, haggard and sweating – had come forward out of the dark cell to act as spokesperson, and he politely asked me to take a message to their families: “Viva la Resistencia,” he said, with his fist upraised, then stepped back into the shadows.

Jeremy Kryt, a graduate of the Indiana University School of Journalism and the University of Iowa Writers’ Workshop is writing his first novel. His journalism is forthcoming in publications like In These Times, and Narco News.

by **John Schröder** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:19 pm

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/inde ... th_zelaya/

Leaders of the nonviolent anti-coup movement confer during a stand-off between police and demonstrators.

A young man arrested by police on the streets of the capital, after the dispersal of a peaceful protest. Hundreds have been arrested during the recent crackdown.

Peaceful protestors in front of the Brazilian Embassy, earlier this week. The sign in the foreground reads: ‘Without hate, without violence, without weapons – we’ll win!’

Farmers cooking on an open fire inside the National Agricultural Institute, the day before the compound was raided by police.

by **John Schröder** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:37 pm

http://quotha.net/docs/honduras/Orellan ... lation.pdf

Coup D’état in Honduras. A Juridical Analysis

Sunday, September 27, 2009 04:41

By: Edmundo Orellana
Professor, Faculty of Law
National University of Honduras
Translation done jointly by Charles Utwater II, Doug Zylstra, Camille Collins Lovell and Adrienne Pine, without the benefit of professional editing.

I. EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE COUP

1. The Fourth Ballot Box

The need to review the Constitution in its entirety was put forward during the electoral campaign, because the present Constitution is a poor copy of the Constitutions of 1957 and 1965. Contradictions within it are abundant, many of its articles are written in stone, it does not allow the effective participation of citizens in the processes of deciding and solving local and national problems and, most importantly, it is not responsive to the national reality of the Twenty First Century.

President Zelaya decided to propose the revision of the Constitution and, for this effort, met with different social sectors, including the political parties. From these explorations of opinion arose the idea of a National Constitutional Convention and the inclusion of a fourth ballot box [along with the normal three ballot boxes for presidential, congressional, and mayoral candidates] in the elections of the 29th of November. The object was to ask the Honduran people if they desired to convene a Constitutional Convention to issue a new Constitution.

The Constitution requires that certain aspects of the Constitution may not be revised under any circumstances, so the idea [of a Constitutional Convention] is at the Constitution’s outer limits. These [non-revisable] aspects are the following: the form of government, the national territory, the presidential period, and the prohibition on re-occupying the Presidency of the Republic by any person who had carried out presidential duties under any title and who could not be candidates for the president in the next term. The Articles which dealt with these topics may not be reformed, i.e. are written in stone.

Those sectors which were consulted were in agreement that that the idea of a new Constitution would remain legitimate if the people voted in favor of it. But the electoral legal system only recognizes three ballot boxes in the general election: that of the President, that of Congressmen, and that of Mayors. That which was essential to approve the legal standards to regulate in future would become known as THE FOURTH BALLOT BOX.

The next step was to seek the road to achieve approval of the legal standards which would permit the placement of this ballot box in the general election. The National Party, whose candidate publicly expressed his support for the idea and the Democratic Unification [Party], which was enthusiastic about the idea, each decided to propose through their Congressmen separate legislative initiatives with the goal of regulating a ballot box with this aim. The process of approval began immediately.

2. The Ballot Question

President Zelaya chose a different approach. In place of submitting the legal project to the National Congress that it might approve or not (a question which he constitutionally could pose, just as the National Party and the National Unification Party had done) he preferred to ask the People if it wanted this FOURTH BALLOT BOX, so that, if the response were in the affirmative, he would have sufficient justification to submit the legal project to the National Congress.

President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, in the Cabinet Meeting, decided to carry out the People’s Ballot Question. Presidential Decree PCM-005-2009 as approved had the following characteristics: to ask the Honduran people if it agreed to inclusion of one more ballot box in the November elections in addition to the three which corresponded to the President, the Congressmen, and the Mayors with the asking them if they wished in the following presidential period to convene a Constitutional Convention.

3. Intervention of the Court of Administrative Disputes

This Decree from the Cabinet Meeting was challenged by the Public Minister before the Administrative Disputes Authority, alleging that it was illegal because it said that it would perform a “consulta” (ballot question) of the people; the Constitution only recognizes plebiscites and referenda, whose conduct is solely within the competency of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Art. 5, paragraph 5) as the only permitted ballot questions

The Court of Administrative Disputes decided, in an incidental ruling, to stay the effectuation of this Decree of the Cabinet, while it decided for a final ruling on whether the Decree was legal or illegal. That is, the Court did not qualify the Act as illegal. It simply suspended its effectuation to avoid [the possibility that] the achievement [of the Decree] would nullify the final judgment.

The Council of Ministers, in acceptance of the plaintiff’s aim, revoked Decree PCM-005-2009, whose effectuation had been suspended by the Court, despite the fact that it had never become effective because it was not published in the Official Journal, La Gaceta, a requirement demanded by the Constitution so that ordinary Acts may have juridical consequences.

Honduran legislation recognizes two kinds of rulings: the final and the incidental. The first are delivered in ordinary opinions and, given no further challenge during the passage of the appeal period, are converted into final judgments or matters beyond the statute of limitations. The incidental [ruling] is issued for incidences, which are questions posed within the larger proceeding and which, when they are of prior and special ruling, should be resolved before this [the proceeding] is settled by a final verdict. Among such incidences is that of the suspension of the Act challenged in an ordinary trial of the administrative dispute. The objective of the suspension is to avoid [the situation in which], with the execution of the Act under challenge, may be produced irreparable damages which cannot be undone even with the verdict that the principal ruling may pronounce.

4. The Poll

“ARTICLE 5. – The citizen initiative is a mechanism of participation through which the citizen shall present the following requests and initiatives: 1) to request that the tenured heads of public organs or sections of any of the Powers of the State [Executive, Judicial, and Legislative] convene the general citizenry; the residents of a Municipality, a neighborhood or district; or trade unions, sectors, or organized social group so that they may issue opinions or formulate proposals for the solution to collective problems which affect them. The results will not be binding but will be the set of facts for the exercise of the functions of the convener.

The aforementioned Decree having been revoked, it was decided to invoke the Law of Citizen Participation, approved in the first session of the National Congress of the government of President Zelaya. This law recognizes, in Article 5, the legal mechanism of participation called “citizen initiative,” conceived as a right of the citizen to request that the tenured heads of organs of the State might ask of the general citizenry or the residents of a Municipality to issue opinions or formulate proposals for the solution to collective problems which affect them. The results are not binding but shall serve as the set of facts for the exercise of the functions of the convener.

This formulation was the legal basis that the Executive required to have the Honduran people make a pronouncement regarding the relevance of a law that had as its object the regulation of The Fourth Ballot Box.

With this legal foundation, a new Decree of the Cabinet (Number PCM-019-2009, dated 26 May 2009) was approved. Through this would be provided the conduct of a poll (now not a ballot question) to obtain the opinion of the citizens around the advisability of the FOURTH BALLOT BOX in the elections of November, as a justification to send the legal project to the National Congress was approved.

The question which would be done in the poll is the following: Do you agree that in the general elections a fourth ballot box should be installed by which the people may decide on the convening of a Constitutional Convention.

5. Clarification of the Ruling

What the Court had to resolve, always at the request of the plaintiff, was the adoption of precautionary measures to ensure the result of the verdict, a question permitted by our legislation. Among these measures is the prohibition against the passage of new Acts.

On the 29th of May, 2009, the Court of First Instance of Administrative Disputes, faced with a petition of clarification of the incidental verdict, resolved that in the matter [of the incidental verdict] were implicitly included not only the Act challenged in the request petition, but all Acts which the Executive might order with the aim [of posing a Ballot Question].

The court made an inexcusable error, to wit: to attempt that in the verdict would be included not only the Act that had been challenged, but also all future Acts of the defendant. With that, in practice, the clarification became a new verdict, which would rule on Acts which were not the object of the verdict and, additionally, which lacked physical reality, since it attempted to command regarding Acts which the judge imagined the Executive might order in the future.

Appropriate appeals were lodged against the verdict, but the judicial system reacted as might be expected, confirming the absurd legal reasoning which the verdict in question contained. The challenges rejected, the verdict, despite being nonsense, had to be obeyed.

Exceptionally, judicial communications were sent to all the institutions to ensure that they would not participate in the ballot question, advising them that if they did so, they would be punished with the full force of the law. Among them [the institutions] was the Armed Forces.

The final Decree (Number PCM-019-2009), dated the 26th of May 2009, was published on the 25th of June.

One day prior, the 24th, the President dismissed the Chief of Staff because this person told him that while a judicial order existed suspending the ballot question, they couldn’t participate in the carrying out of the same because it was against the law to avoid complying with a judicial order. Thereupon, the resignation of the Minister of National Defense was accepted and the resignations of the Commanders of the Air Force, Naval Force, and Army were proposed.

II. THE PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT DECREE

1. The Decree

The President of the Republic was replaced on the 28th of June by the President of the National Congress in a session of this State Power and by the decision of an as-yet undetermined number of Congressmen.

The decision of the National Congress is contained in Legislative Decree No. 141-2009, which in its conclusions says:

This Legislative Decree does not withstand the slightest legal analysis. It contains as many violations of the Constitution as comprise the formulation. In the numbers which follow this section are identified the constitutional violations which the National Congress incurred with the issuing of this Decree.

2. Censure of the Conduct of the President

Article 205, Number 20: “To approve or censure the administrative conduct of the Executive Power, Judicial Power, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Superior Tribunal of Auditors, Attorney General of the Republic, Attorney of the Environment, Public Minister, National Commissioner of Human Rights, National Registry of Persons, Decentralized Institutions, and the other auxiliary organs and special [branches] of the State.”

The Constitution of the Republic confers on the National Congress the ability to censure the conduct of the Executive Power, Judicial Power, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Superior Tribunal of Auditors, Attorney General of the Republic, National Commission of Human Rights, Public Minister, and other institutions.

Censure refers to the conduct of the organ, not to the conduct of the tenured head of the organ. The Congress neither may nor should censure the conduct of a particular public official.

Censure of the conduct of the President of the Republic, of a Secretary of State, of a Magistrate, of the Supreme Court of Justice, of the Electoral Tribunal or of the Court of Assessors, or the manager of a decentralized entity is not envisioned.

3. Censure of Administrative Conduct

The capacity which the Constitution does recognize is possessed by the National Congress is to approve or censure administrative behaviors, not to assess violations to the legal order.

Legislative Decree 141-2009 clearly asserts a determination that the President of the Republic committed repeated violations of the Constitution and of the laws and failure to observe the resolutions and verdicts of the organs of the legal authority. It does not deal, therefore, with simple questions of administrative conduct involving political responsibility, but rather with illicit acts, which is to say, crimes.

For the Congress there was not a shred of doubt that the President was guilty of violations of legislation and of disobedience, although no deeds or acts had been identified. The violations of the President indicated in the abstract might be characterized as crimes on the assumption that they could be individualized. The accusation in the abstract was sufficient that the National Congress might decide to declare the guilt of the President of the Republic for the commission of unspecified crimes.

Under our Constitution, only the Judicial Power holds jurisdiction to administer justice (Art. 303, first paragraph) and to apply the laws in specific cases, to judge, and to carry out the law (Art. 304). If the President had violated legislation and had disobeyed judicial resolutions, it would be up to the Judicial Power, and specifically to the penal authority, which is responsible to judge his behavior and to determine if he actually was involved in an illicit act. It would not be up to the National Congress.

In characterizing as illicit the supposed acts of the President, and by declaring him guilty of having committed them, the National Congress therefore arrogated unto itself authority exclusive to the Judicial Power. That is to say, it usurped functions which the Constitution attributes to another Power of the State.

4. The National Congress does not have the Authority to Impeach the President of the Republic

A) The organs of the Powers of the State

Article 4. The form of the government is republican, democratic, and representative. It is practiced by the three Powers: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, [which are] complementary and independent, and without hierarchical relations.
Art. 189. The Legislative Power is exercised by a Congress of Deputies, which shall be elected by direct suffrage.
Art. 235 The tenured head of the Presidency shall exercise the Office of Executive Power on behalf of and for the benefit of the People…
Art. 303. The Judicial Power is composed of a Supreme Court of Justice….

According to our Constitution, the Honduran State is comprised of three Powers which, according to Article 4 of the Constitution “are complementary and independent, and without hierarchical relations.” Everything related to these three Powers is regulated, fundamentally, in the Constitution of the Republic. The three Powers are interrelated and exercise functions which allow a balance between the three.

The Legislative Power administers the oath of office of the President of the Republic, elect the Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice and they administer the constitutional oath to them. The Executive Power presents the General Budget of the Republic, in which are contained the budgets of the other Powers of the State and, additionally, exercises veto power regarding the laws issued by the National Congress. The Judicial Power can, exercising its judicial discretion, deliver rulings which the functionaries of the other Powers of the State are obliged to obey; for example, to annul the administrative Acts of the Executive and some of the Legislative branch, as well as to declare unconstitutional Acts of both Powers and laws issued by the National Congress.

Each Power of the State is composed of and is exercised by the following organs: the Legislative Power by the National Congress comprised of Congressmen elected by direct suffrage; the Judicial Power, by the Supreme Court of Justice comprised of Magistrates elected by the National Congress; the Executive Power, by the President of the Republic on behalf of and for the benefit of the People who elect him for a period of four years by a simple majority of votes.

The only Power of the State which is composed of and exercised by one person is the Executive Power (Art. 235). All the remaining [Powers] are composed of and exercised by corporate organs.

B) Can the tenured heads of the Powers of the State be removed?

All the tenured heads of the Powers of the State are elected for defined periods. The congressmen and the President [are elected] for a period of four years and the Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice for a period of seven.

By resignation, death, or judicial disqualification (Constitutional Art. 205, Number 12) the tenured heads of these Powers may vacate their posts before the completion of their respective term.

The Constitution contains no standard by which the removal or impeachment of a President, Congressman, or Judge may be authorized. Therefore, no tenured head of a Power of the state may be removed from his post before he completes the period for which he was elected.

C) The removal of the President

Art. 238. Those who execute Acts directly proceeding to obtain by force or by extralegal means any of the following ends commit a crime against the form of government:
1)…
2) Altering the composition of any of the Powers of the State
Art. 2
...the supplanting of the sovereignty of the People and the usurpation of the constituent Powers are designated to be crimes of treason against the nation. The responsibility in these cases is inalienable and may be alleged officially or at the request of any citizen.

The removal of any of the tenured heads of a Power of the State would be contrary to the Constitution and would constitute a Crime against the Form of Government, in the sense of Article 238 of the Penal Code. If the removal were to be of all the members of one of the corporate organs which exercise Powers of the State, as is the case of the Legislative or Judicial (impeachment of all the congressmen or of all the judges) one can assert without hesitation that this is a Coup D’état, because the deed eliminates one Power of the State, i.e., it usurps a component Power.

In conclusion, the National Congress lacks the constitutional capability to impeach the President of the Republic.

The arbitrary removal of the President translates into an attempt against the Constitutional State inasmuch as it, without authority, disavows the Executive Power, whose exercise by constitutional mandate belongs to the President whose investiture emanates from the People who elect him for a period of four years.

It definitely amounts to the supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurpation of a constituent Power, characterized in the Constitution as the crime of treason against the nation under Article 2 of our Constitution.

5. Application of Sanctions

Article 89: All people are innocent, as long a competent authority has not declared him/her guilty.
Art. 82: The right to protection [before the law] may not be abridged.

The application of sanctions in our legislation is based on the completion of requirements which may not be avoided. The most important are those recognized [explicitly] in the Constitution, i.e., respect for the presumption of innocence, the right to protection [before the law], and the right to due process.

All people have the right to be treated as innocent by the authorities, until a competent authority has declared his/her guilt.

No one may be sanctioned without being permitted to defend himself in a proceeding prescribed by the law for that purpose.

The cited Decree, in short, is infested with violations to the Constitution as follows:

a) It declares that the President committed violations and acts of disobedience without identifying them;

b) The infractions imputed to the President are constitutive of [specific] crimes (abuse of authority, disobedience, and others), but they aren’t individualized;

c) It declares his guilt without having completed previously the respective trial, in which he might make use of the mechanisms which the law recognizes by which the accused may defend himself against the illicit acts which his accusers impute to him; and

d) It denies the opportunity that these [illicit acts] might be previously characterized and judged before the appropriate Judge.

III. THE DESIGNATED PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION

ARTICLE 242.- If the absence of the President should be unconditionally permanent, the Designated Person who the National Congress elects as a consequence shall exercise the Executive Power for the time remaining to complete the constitutional term. Should there also be a permanent lack of the three designees, however, the Executive Power shall be exercised by the President of the National Congress, and failing the latter, by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice for the period remaining to complete the constitutional term. In his temporary absences, the President shall be entitled to name one of the designees so that he may serve as a substitute.

If the election of the President and Designees were to remain undeclared one day before the 27th of January, the Executive Power will be exercised as a special exception by the Cabinet, which must convene elections of the senior leadership within fifteen days subsequent to that date. These elections shall be accomplished within a period not less than four nor greater than six months, counted from the date of the announcement. Once the elections are complete, the National Elections Council or, failing that, the National Congress or the Supreme Court of Justice, if applicable, shall make the suitable declaration of election, within twenty days following the date of the election, and the elected officials shall immediately assume their duties until completion of the appropriate constitutional period. While the newly elected senior leadership is assuming its duties, the Congressmen of the National Congress and the Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice shall continue in the interim the performance of their functions.

1. Occasion for the replacement of the President

The Constitution establishes two hypotheses (Art. 242) in which the President may legally be replaced, to wit: in temporary absences and in permanent absences.

Temporary absences should be understood as trips by the President outside the country, going on leave for a determined period of time, and the suspension of the duties consequent to a judicial decision. Should the voyage abroad be for more than fifteen days, it is up to the National Congress to grant permission (Art. 205, number 13).

Going on leave is envisaged for any circumstance in the President finds himself which he may be able to justify (Art. 205, number 12).

The [case of] suspension is created when a competent judge decrees a prison sentence for any crime which may deserve a greater penalty, because in this case it is envisaged in the Constitution that citizenship would be suspended (Art. 41), a status that carries with it the recognition of political rights, among which are those of electing and being electing, and conducting public duties (Art. 37). The suspension is provisional, because the definition of his/her situation shall only obtain until the respective sentence is pronounced, for which he/she might declare his/her innocence. What matters is the return to exercise of the post.

Among permanent absences are included all those cases in which in which the President ceases definitively the exercise of his post. Death, resignation, and judicial incapacitation are circumstances which definitively separate the President from the exercise of his/her post.

The acceptance of resignation is discretionary and [the authority] to grant it belongs to the National Congress (Art. 205, number 12).

Incapacitation, which is a penalty incidental to the penalty of imprisonment, may be special or definitive: the former is carried out in the event that the crimes are those of penalties less than five (5) years, and is applied for a particular post or political right (Art. 49, Penal Code). The latter is carried out when the crime deserves a penalty greater than five years and applies to all public posts (Art. 48, Penal Code)

2. Functionaries which may substitute for the President

The President may be substituted by a Designee to the Presidency, the President of the National Congress, or the President of the Supreme Court of Justice. In temporary absences, only Designees may substitute for him. The Designee shall be whomever the President shall decide, including for trips abroad, shorter or longer than fifteen days.

Should the President not appear at the start of the constitutional period for which he has been elected, the Designee to the Presidency elected by the National Congress shall exercise Executive Power.

In permanent absences, the Designee which the National Congress may select can substitute for him [the President]. It may happen that the Designees may be permanently absent (as in the case of death, for example). In this case, the President of the Congress might substitute for him [footnote: previously it was the Vice President. But the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional reform by which Vice-presidential Designees would be substituted]; and if there were also a permanent absence of him [the President of the Congress], the substitution would fall on the President of the Supreme Court of Justice.

The Constitution recognizes that the Cabinet can assume the exercise of Executive Power in one case: when one day prior to the 27th of January, the President of the Republic and Designees have not been declared [the winners of] the election (Art. 243).

3. Replacement of the President

The replacement is arranged by the National Congress if the conditions anticipated in constitutional norms are not met.

It was not possible to allege a temporary absence because none of the constitutional hypotheses came to arose. That included the case originating in a prison sentence, because the President was not even haled before a judge. Neither could a permanent absence be alleged, because the President had not resigned, was not dead, nor had he been removed from his capacity by judicial order.

Despite this, the National Congress designated a substitute for the President for the entire remainder of Zelaya’s presidential period.

Following this reasoning, the man who poses as President of the Republic was not legally invested, because his designation was contrary to the Constitution. That is, everything was accomplished contrary to the Constitution of the Republic.

4. Succession, promotion or replacement?

A) Succession

All the organs of state, including the Supreme Court, argue, even in their written statements, that on June 28 there was a "presidential succession"

This language, strangely coinciding between all the organs of state, has a serious problem: it is not constitutional. In fact, no constitutional provision uses the term "succession" to describe the change of chief executive power in the cases studied, nor in any other case.

"Succession" is a term used in private law to refer to the transfer of property, rights or charges of a deceased person to his chosen heir. Succession, therefore is the process of the transmission of assets that occurs with death, either by will or intestate.

In public law, the term "succession" also involves transmission, but it is referred to in the sense of "succession to the throne". In this case, what is transmitted is the crown, a constitutional body representing the State and its unity. It is the word used in monarchies to designate the hereditary transmission of the crown following the death or abdication of the king to a person determined by the line of succession recognized in the Constitution (eldest son and, failing that, those who remain in line or sequence) to have inheritance rights and guarantee the royal dynasty, as in Spain, where the mention of the Constitution to "historic dynasty" is an unambiguous reference to the House of Bourbon, so that presumably only the successors to the Royal House are linked with inheritance of Spanish Crown.

Honduras is a republic not a monarchy. From birth as an independent country, the founders excluded from their vocabulary the word "succession", precisely because they were such ardent supporters of the idea of a Republic. Consequently, the word "succession" does nor pertains to our system of government nor fit within our constitutional framework.

What our Constitution does recognize is the Alternation in the office of the Presidency as the normal means of transmitting the powers of government of a constitutional period to another and implies that general elections are carried out and declare formally elect the new President of the Republic. In this case, one could, in principle, speak of "succession" because there is no break between the periods of democratic, representative and republic Government.

Alternation will not exist, however, in the office of President if the elected President is replaced, still adhering to the Constitution, by another person before his term ends (Appointed President, Chairman of the National Congress or President of the Supreme Court of Justice) or if at the end of this period someone assumes the presidency who has not been elected in general elections by direct popular vote (as is the case of the Council of Ministers).

B) Promotion

"Promotion" is the term used in the decree which removed President Zelaya, i.e. 'in his place was promoted the President of Congress.'

This term refers to ascending to a position to which one has a right within that person's particular career (civil service, judiciary, military career, etc..). But in levels of the Senior Officials of the State, there is no protected career by law. These officials do not benefit from promotions or advancement, and their time in a position grants them only a retirement or pension. Moreover, the Constitution does not use that term to refer to the cases before us.

Furthermore, nobody, not even the authors of the decree in question, has insisted on calling a 'promotion' the act by which the President of Congress becomes the President of the Republic, which shows that even the parents themselves regret the mischief caused by having used the word incorrectly.

C) Substitution

Substitution is the term that the Constitution uses to refer to the act by which an officer may exercise the executive power when the President vacates office before the end of the constitutional term for which he was elected (Art. 242).

Substitution does not fall within the Alternation in the office of the Presidency, because it relates to the succession of a president's term by another, prior to elections and the declaration of the election of the new President.

Substitution is operable when the President can not complete the term for which he was elected by supervening circumstances, such as when he dies, resigns or is disqualified by a court.

It refers, obviously, to an abrupt interruption of the office of President of the Republic before completing the constitutional term for which he was democratically elected, but within the constitutional framework. The expulsion of the President from office does not classify as Substitution, especially in light of the further aggravating circumstance, in this case, of expatriation.

D) Conclusion

What was carried on June 28 by the National Congress is not a succession, as recognized by all branches of government and other public bodies, nor is it a Promotion, precisely because the Decree vainly attempts to remove President Zelaya, nor is it a Replacement because the appointment of the supposed substitute was not carried out as mandated by the Constitution of the Republic.

The National Congress, therefore, violated the Constitution of the Republic. It simply removed, without the constitutional powers to do so, the President of the Republic, ignoring his appointment to the office legitimized by the direct vote of the Honduran people in democratic elections held and accepted as legal by the National Electoral Court. Therefore, the appointment of the President of Congress to exercise the executive power is the product of a violation of the Constitution of the Republic.

In conclusion, there occurred a supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurpation of a Constituted Power because the President of the Republic was removed from office, even though the people had elected him for a term of four years, they arrogated to themselves powers which the Constitution does not grant by appointing the President of the National Congress as his replacement and he, in turn, exercises executive power with an unconstitutional investiture.

This is definitely a coup.

IV. THE CAPTURE AND EXPATRIATION OF THE PRESIDENT

1. Constitutional Law

The current Constitution of the Republic reads (Art. 102) that "no Honduran may be expatriated.

2. The capture

Ar. 293. The National Police is a professional, permanent institution of the State ... ... responsible for implementing the resolutions, rules, mandates and legal decisions of the authorities and public officials ...Article 99. ... Except for emergencies, the search of private homes can not be done from (6) in the afternoon to (6) in the morning ...

Under our Constitution, implementation of the resolutions, rules, mandates and decisions of the authorities, is reserved for the police (Section 293)

The capture of the President was made by the armed forces, not by the police. It is an act, therefore, notoriously contrary to the Constitution of the Republic.

It is alleged that a judge ordered the military to execute the arrest. But it does not remedy the violation of the Constitution to argue that a trial judge, in order to hear the case, carried out the order, because judges can order only what the law recognizes, as part of their powers. Court orders that clearly violate the Constitution are illegal and therefore flawed, in this case of absolute nullity, so that may be canceled at any time and automatically.

Finally, it is claimed by the same President Zelaya that the raid on his home was carried out before six (6) in the morning. What could be more contrary to the provisions of the Constitutional Article 99, that states that premises may not be entered between 6 pm and 6 a.m. (Art. 99, second paragraph).

This article has been repeatedly invoked by judges to declare illegal the raids on the homes of drug dealers or kidnappers, who are then hastily released, in spite of all the incriminating evidence gathered in the illegal raid. This behavior has frequently been questioned by both prosecutors and police. Evidently, drug traffickers and kidnappers receive a better legal treatment from the judicial system than that accorded to President Zelaya, in this case.

3. Justification of expatriation

The argument made to justify the deportation of the President of the Republic, and even the removal itself, is as follows: expatriation was necessary because simply bringing him before a Judge meant that a bloodbath was going to be inevitable. This is founded, according to lawyers who support the coup and the expatriation of the President of the Republic, in the "Necessity" as recognized in our penal code as a justification which exonerates criminal responsibility.

4. The State of Necessity

Under the Penal Code, anyone who "has committed an illegal act required by the need to save oneself or to save others from a danger not caused by him voluntarily or otherwise avoidable, provided that the act is proportionate to the danger " is exempted from criminal liability as justification for certain acts. However, that person "can not claim State of Necessity if it is their duty to confront that same danger " (Article 24)

All writers on the subject as well as case law itself require that the danger to be avoided is real, imminent, immediate and unavoidable. The danger, then, needs be current, not future, possible or probable. Neither can the claim of State of Necessity be made when the danger can be avoided or can be circumvented by other means not injurious to others.

The danger should threaten an individual good that is legally protected (life, physical integrity, decency, honor, property, for example), their own or of a third party, creating a real situation of need to prevent or repel aggression in order to save it. It cannot be invoked by simply alleging, for example, that the intentions is to save the nation, but rather to save one or more concrete persons from danger.

The danger may be caused by the perpetrator, by another person or by nature. If it is caused by the perpetrator, the State of Necessity may be invoked only when it occurs involuntarily. If caused intentionally, the State of Necessity does not pertain, like when, in order to collect an insurance, a businessman decides to commit arson, but in his carelessness destroys the neighboring property.

The creation of the State of Necessity must be proportionate to the risk, i.e. the supposed legal good to be sacrificed must be equal or less than the safeguarded. In a shipwreck, no one would think to sacrifice the passengers in order to save them merchandise on board.

Finally, anyone who has the duty to face a certain danger cannot plead a State of Necessity when such a danger arises. No public official whose role is to constantly face danger, such as police, firefighters, soldiers and others like it can invoke in his favor that "cause of justification."

5. Conclusion

In the case of the removal of the President and his expatriation, we should assess the risk, the good that is legally protected, the ratio between the fact and the danger, and whether the perpetrators acted to save themselves and others from the supposed "bloodbath."

If one accepts that the removal and the deportation was justified, going forward the alleged unconstitutional actions of the Presidents will be avoided by means of dismissal. Also, any complaints regarding the President's conduct will best be resolved by means of exile, not a trial, because bringing them to court presence involves a grave and imminent danger, something that can only be avoided by these means.

Clearly, the removal and expatriation cannot be justified on the basis of 'State of Necessity". Nobody in their right mind can accept as legal the argument that to avoid the "bloodbath that having the President brought before a judge in the course of a fair trail would of course bring about", it was necessary to depose him and take him against his will to another country and leave him on the tarmac there as if he were any old package.

Moreover, there have been discussions about the responsibility for the expatriation of the President. It appears that this decision is the not the responsibility of one person or one institution, because what happened on the 28th was already known about by the heads of most state institutions and some trade associations and the civil society, which can be derived by the immediate, organized reactions to the same.

The great conspiracy was revealed on the 28th. The operation that was implemented that day was designed with sufficient time to ensure that nothing would be left to chance or exposed to last-minute, discretionary decisions. Immediately after the expatriation, Congress met to officially impeach the President, other state bodies felt that everything was legal, private business, religious leaders and civil society expressed satisfaction and stated that they approved of what happened because it was a "constitutional succession", and finally, the argument of "State of Necessity" to justify the deportation of the President, was made from the highest spheres of public power.

In this conspiracy was also considered the expatriation of the Chancellor Patricia Rhodes, against whom, according to statements by the same authority, there existed no arrest warrant. No one has yet explained why the Chancellor was expatriated.

For this, we draw attention to the situation of fundamental rights in Honduras. If the public authorities and business organizations, religious and civil society are able to participate or accept the violation of fundamental rights of the President of the Republic and the Chancellor, why can not contravene against ordinary citizens.

Obviously, preparing the coup so well in advance did not help, since everything obviously went so wrong. The awkwardness, the absurdity and simplicity is what is most prominent in the whole operation.

Finally, it should be noted that the precedent would be disastrous not only for future Presidents of Honduras, but also to the Presidents of Latin America. Impunity in the case of Honduras, would be imposing a rule to apply in the rest of Latin America.

V. DID THE PRESIDENT VACATE AUTOMATICALLY HIS POSITION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 239 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

1. As established in article 239 Article 239 of the constitution prohibits anyone who has already exercised the title of Executive Power to aspire to the Presidency of the Republic and punishes anyone who violates the prohibition, and anyone who “proposes its reform, as well as those who support it directly or indirectly”. The penalties are: immediate cessation of the exercise of his respective responsibilities and ineligibility during 10 years for the exercise of any public function.

Article 239. The citizen who has already exercised the title of Executive Power cannot be president or designate [vice-president]. He who violates this mandate or proposes its reform, as well as those who support it directly or indirectly, will cease immediately the exercise of his respective responsibilities and ineligibility during 10 years for the exercise of any public function.

2. Did the President violate article 239?

It has been suggested that President Zelaya had ceased to be president since the 28th of June due to the following: with the opinion poll that was to be carried out on the 28th, the President intended to continue in power or be reelected, thus positioning himself as a passive subject of the anticipated sanctions in said legal mandate. The Decree announcing this poll, published in La Gaceta [The Gazette – official publication of the government], did not refer to continuation nor to reelection. All of [the decree’s] guidelines regulate only a poll which was intended to justify a bill which would be remitted to the National Congress to regulate a fourth ballot in which eventually the people would vote about the convening of a National Constitutional Assembly.

The motive, therefore, does not exist. And the best proof of that is that the National Congress did not invoke article 239 in the Legislative Decree with which it tried vainly to remove the President from his office. In conclusion, the President did not violate article 239.

3. How is article 239 applied?

It is said that this article is automatically applied, without intervention by any authority declaring the existence of the constitutive acts of transgression, guilt and sentence. To maintain that the President had ceased to be President because article 239 stipulates that he cease his functions “immediately” is to ignore certain universally recognized, fundamental constitutional principles, apparently not well known in our country outside the forensic context. Honduras, since it became a Republic, has had in its Constitutions some provisions that have been sustained firmly and invariably, in order to avoid that the mere accusation of a crime, private or public, becomes an un-appealable verdict. Among these provisions, three stand out: the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial and due process. Article 89 of the constitution establishes that “all people are innocent until there has been a declaration of his responsibility by a competent authority”. In other words, one is guilty only if one has been declared responsible by judicial sentence. “The right to a defense is inviolable”, says article 82 of the constitution. This means that the accused has the right to explain his reasons, present proof and allegations in his favor, before a competent authority. Finally, the constitutional articles 90 and 94 declare that an accused person, respecting his right to a defense, should be tried before a competent judge, who, only if he is found against in the trial, will declare him guilty and sentence him, but the punishment will only apply when this acquires a firm character, that is to say, when there is no possible further legal action to be taken.

Criminal Trial Law offers the rules for application of these principles and our Criminal Trial Code brings them together. Both are studied in the existing schools of law, which are many, and also in the graduate program in Criminal Trial Law at the UNAH. There should be no student or lawyer, as a result, who does not know these principles. In conclusion, although article 239 of the constitution, employs the phrase “immediately”, the penalty will not apply until the judge, upon concluding the trial, decrees it with a firm sentence. These constitutional provisions distance us from the caves, the dark ages, the medieval times and all those eras in which the most elemental rights of human beings were not recognized. They also distance us from systems of Communism, Nazi-ism, Phalangist and Islamic Fascism, in which human beings are simply instruments of supreme will, whose fates, imminent and mysterious, are indisputable and ineludible. The attempted malicious revival of the shameless reminiscences of humanity’s sinister past, with the intention of recognizing their validity, is of great concern. Also of great concern is the intent to copy dishonorable mechanisms of tyrannical systems that oppress their people and are rejected unanimously by modern societies, because of their demonstrated political and legal ignorance that harms our environment.

4. A Curious Detail

It is notable that all the Powers of the State and the rest of the public organizations, like the business and political party leaders (excepting the UD) and leaders of certain civil society organizations, agree that based on the application of article 239, Zelaya was not president on the 28th because, according to them, he planned to reform it. But they don’t say anything about the congress members, of the National Party and of the UD, who, as indicated at the beginning of this article, signed the bill put forth to provide a ballot box for a vote on the same question that Zelaya aimed to ask the population, that is, whether to call for a National Constituent Assembly.

According to the heads of the various state organisms and the leaders of private business groups, the only one who should be punished is President Zelaya, even though the survey was not carried out. According to the Honduran system he is the only guilty party, even though he had not carried out the crime, even assuming it were a crime. The Congresspeople, who did complete the act because they formally presented the bill to provide a ballot box to decide on whether a National Constituent Assembly should be called to the National Congress, are outside the application of article 239.

When the high government officials collaborate with the private business elites to commit injustices like this one, it becomes clear that the problem in Honduras is not one of arbitrariness, but of culture.

If they are capable of doing this to a president what wouldn’t they do to a common citizen.

Thus, we should not be shocked that in our country, justice is selectively applied.

VI. CONCLUSION

There is no doubt whatsoever that on June 28th a coup d’état was carried out, because the legitimate leader of the executive branch was not recognized as such, and was violently expatriated, thus destroying the integrity of the State itself. Through a fiction put forth in the Constitution itself (article 375), the Constitution does not lose its validity in the face of an attack by brute force or political-legal machinations; as such, it is still valid despite the coup d’état.

What is unprecedented is that the coup d’état was the product of a conspiracy of all the Powers and other organisms of State, the business leadership, the leadership of the political parties (except UD), and of some religious leaders and civil society.

This has made clear the fact that public [state] power and the powers of the establishment are one and the same, and that they are convinced they can act with impunity. For this reason we should not be surprised that they have conspired unscrupulously against the nation, against democracy, against history and against reason. They were not concerned with the crisis they could generate on a national or regional level; nor did they care about the reactions of the international community; much less did they care about the future of the country.

Their hate, intransigence, intolerance, and stubbornness were stronger; they gave in to the sense of impunity that comes from the arbitrary exercise of power. In this process, not once have intelligence, imagination or insight–all vital elements of successful conspiracies–played a role; in their place, what stands out is clumsiness, simple-mindedness, and the abundance of dilly-dallying. This is why the conspiracy has proved to be a categorical and resounding fiasco.

Because of this, any solution to this national tragedy must necessarily include a reconstruction of the country, which implies a renewal of institutionality, the construction of a new political culture, characterized by active and direct participation of the citizenry in the solution to the problems that concern them, the establishment of norms to regulate the new form of governance and to detail clearly the objectives and goals that we hope to achieve in the coming decades, and identifying, without demagoguery, the means to achieve them.

The San José Accords have exhausted their useful existence. They are ready to become history. If the obstacles to their implementation prove insurmountable, we will, unfortunately, have to dispense with them.

What is essential is national reconciliation, which requires us to forgive and forget. And what is inevitable, because the people of the nation have raised it as their flag, is the convening of the National Constituent Assembly.

A definitive solution, therefore, cannot be achieved without the convening of the National Constituent Assembly.

by **JackRiddler** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:46 pm

John,

I'm still reading and I hope lots of other people are. This is an important thread (if there is such a thing at all) and I appreciate & am grateful for all the work you do in compiling it. Thanks again.

Nicholas

by **geogeo** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:08 pm

Goriletti just lifted the emergency decree.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:24 pm

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/5/o ... aya_speaks

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya Speaks from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa

The deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya remains within the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, where he has been staying, surrounded by soldiers and riot police, since returning to his country two weeks ago. It has been nearly 100 days since President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military. On Friday, the Organization of American States told reporters that representatives of the deposed president and the coup government led by Roberto Micheletti will likely begin talks this week. Micheletti reportedly said he would meet with his cabinet today to consider lifting an emergency decree limiting civil liberties. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Manuel Zelaya

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the ousted president of Honduras. Anjali?

ANJALI KAMAT: Well, we go now to Honduras, where the deposed President Manuel Zelaya remains within the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, where he’s been staying, surrounded by soldiers and riot police, since returning to his country two weeks ago. It’s been nearly 100 days since President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military.

Meanwhile, the Organization of American States told reporters Friday that representatives of the deposed president and the coup government led by Roberto Micheletti will likely begin talks this week. Micheletti reportedly said he would meet with his cabinet today to consider lifting an emergency decree limiting civil liberties.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on Honduras, we’re going right now to the Brazilian embassy to speak with the democratically elected leader, the Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

President Zelaya, we welcome you to Democracy Now! Can you explain how you got into the Brazilian embassy and what is happening there now?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Thank you very much. I am facing great obstacles, but my spirit is strong. And I have faith in the international support that I’m receiving.

TRANSLATOR: It’s a very challenging problem. The connection is not particularly good.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to a break, and we’re going to come back. Again, we have reached President Zelaya inside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa in Honduras, where he has been under siege. Honduran soldiers are outside the embassy. There have been teargas over the period that he has been there, holed up with a number of supporters and also reporters. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with President Zelaya in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: On the line with us from inside the Brazilian embassy—we have tried switching lines so we can get a better line—is the ousted president Manuel Zelaya, speaking to us in Tegucigalpa.

How did you get inside the embassy? That is one of the big questions, aside from whether you will be returned to power, that many people are asking, President Zelaya.

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [inaudible]

TRANSLATOR: I can’t hear anything.

ANDRÉS CONTERIS: Is this line dead? Is this line dead?

AMY GOODMAN: This line is good, if you can speak directly into the phone.

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I’m concerned that this is starting a process of further coups d’état throughout Latin America.

AMY GOODMAN: President Zelaya, what are you demanding right now?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] We’re calling for dialogue, but the de facto president has responded by just restricting liberties. [inaudible]

AMY GOODMAN: Andrés Conteris is next to you in the mission. We’d like to ask if he could try to translate. I’m not sure what’s going on with these lines, but we are having difficulty understanding. Andrés, if you could translate for the President right there.

ANDRÉS CONTERIS: I will do that, Amy.

The President explained that Brazil was the most friendly country, and that is why he came here, first of all.

AMY GOODMAN: No, you’re not—Andrés, if you could speak directly into the phone. Otherwise, we cannot hear you.

ANDRÉS CONTERIS: The President explained that Brazil is the country that was most friendly, and that is what he came here first to this embassy. And then he talked about the repression that this coup regime has directed against the resistance.

AMY GOODMAN: And are you speaking on speakerphone or directly into the phone?

ANDRÉS CONTERIS: I’m speaking directly into the phone. The President has speakerphone, and we’re going to turn that off.

AMY GOODMAN: OK, if you could turn that off, that would be good. I think we could understand you a lot better. And just share the phone. He speaks, and then you speak.

Anjali, you had a question for President Zelaya.

ANJALI KAMAT: President Zelaya—

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: Hello? OK?

ANJALI KAMAT: President Zelaya, if you could talk about whether there are going to be talks between your representatives and representatives of the coup government led by Roberto Micheletti? This is the latest news we’ve heard from the Organization of American States.

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The OAS is taking an active role to establish the dialogue, and we’ve decided on three points of negotiation to ensure that it is a good-faith negotiation and settlement. First, the Arias proposal needs to be signed onto immediately. Secondly, we need to create follow-up commissions and monitoring commissions for the Arias proposal. And thirdly, international verification commissions must also be able to work with national verifying missions.

AMY GOODMAN: President Zelaya, what does the Arias accord call for? And what is your stance on that, and what is Micheletti’s?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I’m inviting all parties to immediately sign onto the San Jose Accords, with the presence of the chancellors of Latin American countries. I’m also calling for the accord to create and include a verification commission.

ANJALI KAMAT: President Micheletti—I’m so sorry, President Zelaya, if you could respond to the recent visit by four Republican lawmakers? Senator DeMint and three Republican congressmen visited Honduras last week. They met with Micheletti. Have you had any contact with any US lawmakers?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] No. I wasn’t aware of their visit, nor do I have a comment about their position. If they came to support the coup d’état, I think they’re committing a grave mistake.

AMY GOODMAN: And your assessment of the support that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have given you in attempting to return as the democratically elected president of Honduras? Do you think they have done enough?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Well, I think the US has done a great deal, but I do think that the US could do more.

AMY GOODMAN: What? What could the US do?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think it could call for a trade embargo. It could take commercial measures in that regard. I think that it could freeze bank accounts of the coup leaders and coup supporters.

I also think that it would be good that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton and the ambassador have made a great effort to make the coup leaders understand that they don’t support this procedure—that is, the coup—to resolve the problems. Nonetheless, I don’t think that they’ve done enough, and clearly, these have not been sufficient measures to undo the coup d’état.

The United States needs to show and declare the coup d’état a military coup d’état, call it by that name. With regard to the human rights violations in the last hundred days, those, too, need to be denounced.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to the ousted president Manuel Zelaya. He has made it back into Honduras and has taken refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa. Honduran troops are outside. At times, they are shooting tear gas. Anjali?

ANJALI KAMAT: Can you describe what it’s been like inside the embassy? Can you describe the scene?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes. What has occurred here is truly rude treatment for a democratically elected president. This is not how you treat a president who is fighting to reinstall democracy in his country.

We have been repressed and limited to the embassy. Tear gas has been fired. Our electronic lines, our telephone lines have been cut. We’ve also been under attack from microwaves and the sound cannon, a long-range acoustic device.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, acoustic device, a sound cannon?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are two kinds of unconventional weapons that have been used against us by the regime. There’s a high-frequency pitch that has been used against protesters. And another weapon that has been used against us is an electronic device that issues microwaves, which is very harmful for your health. It causes headaches.

AMY GOODMAN: As president, do you know about this in the Honduran arsenal?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes, of course. We all suffered this. We all witnessed it. There’s photographs and videos of this occurring.

AMY GOODMAN: And who is using this outside—the tear gas, the sound cannon, whatever you call it, the high-frequency machine? Is it Honduran soldiers?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are military forces that have surrounded the embassy. The embassy, in fact, has been turned into a concentration camp.

ANJALI KAMAT: President Zelaya, I want to turn back to the question of how the US has responded to your return. The US representative to the Organization for American States described your return to Tegucigalpa as, quote, “foolish and irresponsible.” What’s your response to that?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think that that statement is an unfortunate personal opinion. I don’t think it recognizes or acknowledges my efforts and the sacrifices I’ve made and the peaceful efforts that I’ve made to reinstall democracy in this country. I think that the Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama’s statements are the ones that I will consider to be the US position.

ANJALI KAMAT: President Zelaya, I want to turn to some of the news reports that came out when you first came into the Brazilian embassy. The Miami Herald on September 24th quoted you as talking about the presence of Israeli mercenaries. And I wanted to ask you about this, because this has now become a big issue, with the Anti-Defamation League and the Wall Street Journal accusing you of being anti-Semitic. Can you respond to these allegations?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I believe that that is a campaign that is just trying to smear my image as a politician. In my government, I was criticized for including important leaders from the Honduran civil society who practice the Jewish religion. Mr. Jaime Rosenthal and Yani Rosenthal were some of my principal economic advisers and are, in fact, fluent in Hebrew.

I don’t believe in racial or religious discrimination at all. I’ve always shown solidarity with the Jewish diaspora and always taken a stand against the crimes against humanity that were committed during the Holocaust. I believe that tolerance has always characterized my time here on earth in the last fifty-seven years, and I think that speaks eloquently and certainly rebuffs any of those accusations.

AMY GOODMAN: President Zelaya, we just have thirty seconds. Your final message as you speak to us from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa?

PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Thank you to Democracy Now! Thank you for covering our situation. And thank you to Andrés Thomas [Conteris]. I want you to know that our spirit is strong, and we will achieve peace in Honduras, and we will roll back the coup d’état.

AMY GOODMAN: President Manuel Zelaya, we thank you for being with us. Manuel Zelaya is the ousted president inside the Brazilian embassy now in Tegucigalpa. We are speaking to him, and special thanks to Andrés Conteris for helping us with this broadcast.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:34 pm

http://www.truthout.org/10060910

Honduras - 100 Days of Repression and Resistance

Tuesday 06 October 2009
by: Tom Loudon, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Today marks 100 days since a military coup was carried out against President Zelaya in Honduras. It also marks 100 days of massive, sustained, nonviolent resistance on the part of the Honduran people who are saying no to this brazen attempt to return to the days of dictators.

In the face of uncontainable resistance, the coup regime has employed increasingly draconian measures. Most disturbing includes a resurgence of death squad activity, wholesale suspension of constitutional rights and the criminalization of social protest. Currently, over 80 people are detained and face charges of sedition. Conservative estimates document 14 murders in the last 14 weeks; two of those occurred during the last week.

Two weeks ago, on September 21, President Zelaya suddenly surfaced inside the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. Tens of thousands of supporters immediately flocked to the Embassy from all over the country to celebrate his return. The coup President Micheletti responded by imposing a 5 PM curfew, which thousands of people ignored, holding an all-night vigil in front of the Embassy. At 5:30 the next morning, police and military attacked the crowd with batons, tear gas, and other weapons. Two people were killed and many were injured, including broken arms and legs. Those arrested were taken to a sports stadium, where they were held for extended periods without food or water.

Twenty-four hour curfews were enforced for several days, making it illegal for anyone but authorized individuals to leave their homes. People responded to the curfew by staging neighborhood-based protests. These, too, were repressed, as police and Army went into neighborhoods, firing tear gas and chasing people down inside the homes where they fled.

Infuriated by Zelaya's return, Micheletti mounted a heavy military cordon around the Brazilian Embassy, cut off lights and water and subjected those inside the Embassy and surrounding areas to "sound terrorism." The government of Brazil protested the use of the long-range acoustic device used to send deafening sound waves and provoke hysteria, and demanded the restoration of electricity and water.

Micheletti then gave the Brazilian government a ten-day ultimatum, after which he promised to invade and capture Zelaya. Brazilian President Lula da Silva responded by reminding Micheletti that such an act on the part of the coup government would be considered an act of war. The president of Brazil also called for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to discuss the crisis in Honduras. Micheletti later recanted on his threats to invade the Embassy and in an apparent attempt at damage control said that he would like to give President Lula "a big hug."

However, in what now appears to have been a targeted attack on individuals inside the Embassy, on Friday, September 25, several people reported similar symptoms: nasal bleeding, blood in stools, coughing up blood and severe throat irritations. It was first suspected that this may have been the result of a chemical weapon, however, symptoms did not affect everyone inside the Embassy. Further investigation suggested that these symptoms may have been caused by a sophisticated experimental weapon called a Maser. Apparently, this weapon sends a microwave beam, similar to a laser beam, that impacts the cell functioning of those exposed to its effects.

On Sunday, September 27, four of the five OAS officials who had come as an advance team to begin a dialogue process were expelled. Later that day, faced with increasing inability to contain mounting protests or to control the country, coup President Micheletti issued an executive decree suspending all fundamental constitutional guarantees for 45 days. Rights suspended include the right to assemble, freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The coup regime also granted itself the right to arrest anyone at any moment without reason or an arrest warrant.

At 5:30 AM the next morning, in what the resistance movement now calls "Operation Silence," troops surrounded and entered Radio Globo and Channel 36, the radio and TV stations with national coverage, and confiscated their equipment. The following day, the coup regime announced the suspension of Radio Globo's operating license, severely limiting national news about what is really happening in the country.

The same day that Honduran media outlets were being raided, an emergency meeting of the OAS on Honduras, scheduled to last one hour, ended ten hours later without reaching consensus, largely due to the intransigent position of the United States. The stalemate resulted from the US insistence that elections be held in November, while most countries in the hemisphere believe that conditions do not exist for free and fair elections in Honduras. Interim representative to the OAS, Lewis Amselem, stated that Zelaya's return was "irresponsible" and had "not served" the diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis resulting from the June 28 coup. Amselem repeated these statements to the press subsequent to the meeting, making it clear that his statements were not just made "in the heat of the moment," but apparently reflect the view of the Obama administration.

Amselem's statements lend support to many who suspect that the State Department continues to be unduly influenced by ultra-conservative forces (inside the Department), who, from the beginning, have supported the coup in Honduras. The failure to actually declare it a coup and lack of serious measures against the putsch government certainly indicate at best an ambiguous position, and, more probably, active support for the coup from within the US State Department.

In this context, pro-coup sectors are calling for a dialogue in the interest of reaching a resolution in order to move forward with the elections scheduled for November 29. On Friday, October 2, the advance team from the OAS was finally allowed into the country. Plans are in place for a high level OAS delegation, including Secretary General Insulza and as many as ten foreign ministers to arrive next Wednesday. It was reported in some media outlets that Ambassador Llorens conducted a meeting last week at the Pomerola Air Base outside of Tegucigalpa with "significant actors," including Secretary General Insulza of the OAS.

A number of informal proposals have already been put forward, including scenarios where neither Micheletti nor Zelaya are leading the country, a permanent seat in Congress for Micheletti, a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed by the coup government and a laundry list of things which are largely unacceptable to the tens of thousands of people who have put their lives on the line to insure that constitutional order be restored in their country. Despite an intense media campaign giving the impression that negotiations are underway, according to informed sources inside the Brazilian Embassy, Zelaya has not been a party to any formal negotiations.

Leaders of the majority of countries in the Hemisphere have stated that conditions do not exist for elections to happen in Honduras in less than two months. The independent party candidate, Carlos H. Reyes, who was attacked by police and had his arm broken, had surgery just this past week, and is far from being able to campaign even if the current state of siege ended tomorrow.

The only viable option to increase the possibility of resolving the crisis in Honduras is a negotiated solution that is acceptable to all parties, followed by a period where some level of normalcy is achieved. Only after this kind of cooling off period is it conceivable to think of holding elections. Elections under current conditions would insure that the regression to military rule, which happened in Honduras on June 28, becomes semi-permanent, and that the resistance and subsequent repression would continue.

Tom Loudon is co-director of the Quixote Center in Washington, DC.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:53 pm

http://quotha.net/node/442

The Writings on the Walls: Graffiti from the Coup Resistance

By Kara Newhouse and Laura Taylor

Even as tireless Honduran protesters approach their 100th day of resistance, continuing to avoiding police tear gas and attend funerals of slain resisters, some facets of quotidian Tegucigalpa life continue under the dictatorship: cars cram into traffic-filled streets, those Hondurans with jobs go to work, and wealthy consumers hit the shopping malls. To maintain this facade of control, on September 27th the Micheletti dictatorship issued a decree dissolving fundamental rights such as the right to assembly and free speech, and the following day closed the critical media sources in the country by force. Yet the literal writings on the walls deny the state of calm that the coup leaders claim exists and expose the state of exception that they impose. These photos capture the ongoing conversations in a shrinking space for expression.

1. “The Walls Talk When the Media Lies”/ El Heraldo 666

Since June 28th, large scale media outlets owned by businessmen benefiting from the coup—such as the newspaper El Heraldo—have consistently misreported and ignored the violent repression of coup resistance in Honduras. On September 28th, Roberto Micheletti's de facto government shut down Radio Globo and Canal 36, eliminating the most widely available outlets critical of the coup. While some members of the resistance look to international media to report the realities of dictatorship in Honduras, many foreign news outlets mirror the ambivalent responses of foreign governments such as that of the United States.

2. “Blanquito, I'll be back tomorrow don't paint over this.”

Resistance members refer to Micheletti supporters as 'blanquitos' because of the white shirts they sport in an ironic attempt to represent “peace” and “democracy.” The term also links today's struggles with the racial heritage of the oligarchy and the legacy of European oppression in Honduras.

3. Red and white flags of the Liberal Party (the party of the coup administration) are reclaimed by the resistance movement in support of President 'Mel' Zelaya.

4. “No to the elections, yes to the constitutional assembly”

Before Zelaya's return to the capital on September 21st, the resistance was planning a national strike to demand constitutional reform through a constituent assembly. For the resistance, Zelaya's presence in the country represents the nearing possibility for constitutional reform. In response, the coup leaders have been scrambling to gain international recognition for the November elections.

5. “Mel is necessary / Mel is urgent”

The phrase 'Urge Mel' has been revived from a song used in his 2005 election campaign. The country's coup-supporting business elites, led by Adolfo Facussé, recently proposed Zelaya's return to the presidency in hopes of gaining U.S. recognition for the November election. Their plan is a thinly masked maintenance of coup control, as it also calls for limitations on Zelaya's power, his prosecution under charges of stealing money, and the installation of Micheletti as a Congressman for life.

6. “Mel-gar is a thief”

This layered message reclaims the statement, 'Mel is a thief,' by changing the name to that of General Juan Melgar Castro, who overtook the Honduran presidency through a military coup in 1975. Like Melgar, General Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez, the military leader of Zelaya's overthrow, received training at the U.S. Army School of Americas.

7. “My country free or death”

8. Zelaya image, “Billy Joya is an assassin/the people will do you justice,” “Long live Mel”

Billy Fernando Joya Améndola , the ministerial adviser on security for the coup regime, served in Battalion 3-16, an elite army death squad responsible for the disappearances of at least 180 Hondurans in the 1980s.

9. "Chavez, Honduras needs you [need crossed out and replaced with hate]”

Public justifications of the coup government focus on a poll that Zelaya proposed as a way to initiate discussion of constitutional reform. To provoke panic about a removal of presidential term limits in Honduras, conservative media have called this a “Chavez-style” move, but juridical analysis clearly shows that the poll established no implications for re-election.

10. “Out with the coup regime,” “Sold out journalists your day will come,” “Micheletti you are not my president! Signed, The People.”

These declarations are scrawled across the Congress building in Tegucigalpa's city center.

11. “Honduras is Repressed,” “Censorship”

These pieces of masking tape come from activists who place tape over their mouths to draw attention to the censorship of the Honduran media and people.

12. “We will not give up”

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:25 pm

http://quotha.net/node/443

Las Chicleras de la Resistencia: Vendors struggle alongside protestors

by Laura Taylor and Kara Newhouse

“I lost my chiclera [box of goods to sell]—the pigs took it from me. They sent everything flying and took my money and everything. They hit us. They throw the tear gas at us, too,” says a young vendor, her arms draped with red bandanas and 'we want Mel' headbands. Around her, other vendors display bruises and scratches. A plaster cast envelopes one woman's arm, broken by Honduran police officers dispersing a march a few weeks earlier. These 'chicleras de la resistencia'—vendors of the resistance— follow the marches, selling their wares and supporting the protesters, who are in their 99th day of continuous resistance against the coup government of Honduras. The limited options for economic survival in the militarized capital of Tegucigalpa, where the informal economy has ground to a halt, draws them to the marches of the resistance for survival and to demand greater opportunities for themselves and their families. Their struggle is a tenacious example of the necessity of the social reforms that the National Front of Resistance against the Coup demands, with or without the restitution of Mel Zelaya.

The vendors flip pupusas, pour horchata, or hawk CD compilations of the 'music of the resistance' while keeping one eye on the troops always a few feet away. “We're risking our lives for these little sales,” they say. With September 27th's decree suspending constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly in a 'state of exception' for the next 45 days, protesters are dispersed with overwhelming force. At a recent march outside the U.S. embassy more than 500 police surrounded the 200 protesters. “They don't let them demonstrate,” said a cigarette vendor on the sidewalk. “They only let those in the white shirts, the blanquitos, demonstrate their support for Micheletti.”

“We can't run away easily with all this stuff,” he said, motioning to the wooden box slung over his shoulders.“Especially not him,” he added with a nod toward a man pushing an ice cream cart. “We have to hide. Sometimes local businesses will let us duck into their buildings to hide from the tear gas and the police, so they don't hit us.” While this vendor's cigarettes and candy pose little risk, those who sell items symbolizing or supporting the resistance, like red bandanas or towels to protect against tear gas, said they faced higher chances of the police confiscating or destroying their goods.

Vendors who identify with the resistance see their role as crucial to maintaining the physical endurance, energy and comfort of the movement. While many vendors requested to remain nameless, fearing repression, others proudly stated their names among those in resistance. Chopping cabbage to top the fried bananas she sells, Patricia Padilla said, “We are always supporting and selling. When the military represses the people, we run along with them.”

These vendors keep the protesters fed whether or not they can pay. “In the resistance there are many campesinos and people who arrive here to protest with nothing but the money for the bus ride in their pocket,” explained a woman selling hot food. “To those people we give a little pupusa or baleada [corn or flour tortillas with beans or cheese]. Other people give them fruit or a bag of juice. This way our people have strength to walk in the streets.”

Defying Curfew for Survival

As the police left the streets mostly empty in their wake, a group of women who had been busily flipping pupusas and stirring horchata minutes before packed up their coolers and mobile stove. The spokesperson of this family of vendors said that a local union uses cell phones to share daily details on resistance actions. Using that information the vendors decide where to sell. Since public resistance communications were cut September 28th, people have begun to arm their own media and communications by gathering in the streets and making noise to defy curfew, knocking on each other's doors, and calling one another for information and for safety.

“We formed a little group of women from the same neighborhood and we call each other and meet up and travel together when the police come,” explained another group of women vendors gathered at a neighborhood celebration. “The first one runs, the second one runs and the third one throws themself on the ground,” one said with a laugh.

The sense of solidarity runs deeply between vendors and with their clients and comrades in the streets. One of the group members explained, “When the police move everyone out, if we have a ride, we follow them. Today we shared a taxi to move the stove and supplies, and then we walked here together from the other protest that the police dispersed. Since we are with the people, we are there with them when [the police] throw tear gas or threaten us with their guns practically against our chests.”

'I come here out of my conviction'

Most vendors agreed sales have been slow, saying that only a little money circulates among the protesters. In addition to macro-level sanctions by USAID and the IMF following the coup, the 'state of siege' imposed by Micheletti has devastated the tourism industry upon which many depend, contributing to high rates of unemployment and work in the informal economy. Cradling her cast and a sheet of 'Mel' pins, one vendor affirmed, “I don't make much money, I come here out of my conviction.”

The vendors are acutely aware of the need for change in their country, with deposed President Zelaya representing the closest possibility they had known in their lifetimes shadowed by multiple coups and dictatorships in the 70's and 80's. The circumstances surrounding the coup are consistently misreported as Zelaya attempting to extend his own term, but the initiative for which he was forcibly removed on June 28th included no implications for re-election. He proposed a poll to assess the people's interest in a more participatory process to reform the constitution. A more representative process of governance would address longstanding demands by Honduras' majority in poverty, including economic stability and the restoration of public services. The vendors, who give away what they can and save what they must for their families, know intimately the failings of the current governing system.

“They say we are poor, vagrants, homeless, delinquents... and yes, the majority of us are poor, but we are here, working” said plantain vendor Padilla. Maintaining the dignity of their work directly challenges accusations of delinquency and disillusionment directed at the resistance. Combating these derogatory statements strengthens the positive identity as part of 'the resistance.' As one vendor declared, “I can't tell you [what is going to happen] for sure, because the poor person lives in a different world than the rich, but I believe we are going to succeed.”

Survival as Social Change

Other vendors inside and outside the capital depend on tourists to buy Honduran arts and crafts, and have been deeply impacted by the militarization of the city following the coup. Fifteen days ago, Marta Castillo fixed up the back of her business, Yax Souvenirs, located in the Guanacaste neighborhood of Tegucigalpa. She installed a kitchen and a single set of table and chairs with hopes of selling food and drinks to passersby. She said she was proud of her determination, as her husband initially resisted the idea of altering their small store of music and art. Marta persisted, though, and said that, little by little, money was starting to flow in again. Occasionally our conversation was interrupted by a quick sale, once a man looking for cigarettes, and then a couple looking for a key chain.

Marta said before this small success she felt like she was drowning. She collaborated with another struggling vendor from Valle de los Angeles, and they work together in the kitchen in the back of the store. It's not easy, Marta cautioned. Another neighbor previously turned down her suggestion to to sell baked goods together in their neighborhood for a little extra income. “Sometimes people are afraid to get involved,” she said. She also noted that lack of capital can prevent cooperative sales efforts. Despite these barriers, many vendors continue to take risks together to survive a devastated economy and face the thousands of police occupying the capital. Marta expressed hope that things would simply return to 'normal.'

For active members of the protests, however, repression by the coup administration in the last three months has raised the consciousness that returning to normal is no longer acceptable. The resistance in Honduras has reached almost 100 days of demonstrations calling for the restitution of President Zelaya and wider social changes to benefit Honduras' majority in poverty through a participatory Constitutional Assembly. The de facto government has conducted at least four executions and 1046 illegal detentions of resistance members, as well as 27 assaults on reporters and attacks on the independent press and, according to a recent report by the Honduran human rights organization COFADEH. Despite intimidation, individuals maintain the strength of resistance not just through chanting but through their struggles at home, in their neighborhoods, and as chicleras de la resistencia. “We have to find a solution for ourselves,” Marta explained. “No one, no one, is coming to help us. We are taking care of ourselves.”

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:32 pm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1001

Rich Vs. Poor At Root Of Honduran Political Crisis

by Jason Beaubien

In Honduras on Monday, de facto president Roberto Micheletti lifted an emergency decree and restored some civil liberties. He imposed the decree last week after nationwide protests erupted following the return of ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

The protracted presidential standoff is highlighting the deep divisions in the country's society, which is split between a powerful yet tiny elite and the vast majority of poor, ordinary citizens.

Zelaya remains holed up in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital. Both sides are calling for dialogue, but so far, there has been little progress on a negotiated settlement to the stalemate.

Since Zelaya — who is often referred to as "Mel" — was ousted, there have been protests in Tegucigalpa both for and against his return.

"In Honduras, we are accustomed to a government of the rich," says Marixa Gorgos, a pro-Zelaya demonstrator. "And the problem for our president, Mel Zelaya, was that he worked for the poor."

Poor Vs. Wealthy

On June 28, the military arrested Zelaya under orders from the Honduran Supreme Court. He was deported to Costa Rica. Zelaya managed to sneak back into the country on Sept. 21 and is taking refuge at the Brazilian Embassy.

His return sparked a social upheaval in this nation of 7.8 million people.

Micheletti initially shut the country's airports and borders. At different times, Micheletti declared nationwide curfews, closed down pro-Zelaya media outlets and banned public gatherings. But Zelaya supporters, including Gorgos, continued to defy the ban.

"I'm here and I'm part of this fight because I don't want my children to live the same way I lived," she says, meaning in a country so sharply divided between the rich and poor.

Honduras is one of the original "banana republics." In the 1800s, U.S. firms set up fruit companies that exploited cheap Honduran labor to export bananas to the port of New Orleans.

While things have improved since the days of the company store, the vast majority of Hondurans remain in poverty.

Ramon Romero, a professor of economics at the National Autonomous University, says power in Honduras is in the hands of about 100 people from roughly 25 families. Others estimate the Honduran elite to be slightly larger, but still it is a tiny group.

Romero says the country's elite have always selected the nation's president. They initially helped Zelaya get into office, and then they orchestrated his removal from power.

What Motivated Zelaya's Ouster?

Micheletti, the de factor president, says Zelaya was "taken out" because he tried to change the rule of the Honduran Constitution, which prohibits presidents from even trying to extend their one term in office.

"[Zelaya] was doing that. He [doesn't] care. He disobeyed the Supreme Court and the Congress and everything," Micheletti says.

Micheletti and his supporters say Zelaya, despite only having a few months left in his term, was on the verge of creating a socialist state modeled after Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

But Romero, the economics professor, says this was a ruse. "The principal reason why the elites split from Zelaya was for economic and not political reasons," Romero says.

Zelaya ran for president as a center-right candidate but then moved sharply to the left while in office.

He governed with a bravado that endeared him to the poor and infuriated the rich. When Congress voted down his budget, Zelaya simply carried on without one.

When the business community and the trade unions locked horns over a minimum wage hike — business argued for no increase while labor wanted an 18 percent boost — Zelaya unilaterally raised the minimum wage 62 percent, to roughly $275 a month.

Several days after Zelaya slipped back into the country, thousands of people took to the streets of the capital yelling, "Mel Out! Mel Out!"

Protests Continue As Country Suffers

Jaime Perez, the chair of the industrial engineering department at a private university in Tegucigalpa, says Zelaya was going to turn Honduras into a communist state.

"We are trying to stand for peace and democracy. We are trying to fight back communism, because it has been proven that it doesn't work. It makes people that are poor [even] poorer. It's not solving the problems of the nations," Perez says.

The coup has been costly: Business groups say the country is losing millions of dollars a day. And there are signs that members of the elite are now desperate to find an end to the crisis. The head of the national Chamber of Industry even said the group might accept Zelaya being reinstalled, on a short leash, until next month's presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Zelaya's supporters — who call themselves La Resistencia, or the Resistance — hold protests almost every day in the capital.

One of their main arguments is that the elites in Honduras have had too much power for too long.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:36 pm

http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2009/1006culpamicheletti.htm

The head of the de facto government in Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, said it was a mistake to take President Manuel Zelaya out of the country, and emphasized that it was not his call but the Armed Forces’ decision.

According to Bolivarian News Agency’s reports Micheletti said: “Yes, it was a mistake (...), I was not responsible for that decision, I was just informed of the proceeding later,” and then he blamed the Honduran military.

Micheletti’s statements do not coincide with what General Romeo Vázquez Velásquez, head of Honduras’ Armed Forces, said a few days earlier when he stated that arresting Zelaya by force was not the army’s idea, ABN reported.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:39 pm

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10 ... =351020706

Deposed President Manuel Zelaya says he will negotiate with the Honduran regime only when civil liberties are restored and the siege of the Brazilian embassy is lifted.

Zelaya, who was forced out of his country in June, lay a new set of preconditions for problem-solving talks with the military-supported interim government led by Roberto Micheletti.

According to the ousted president, the interim government should restore civil liberties and reopen two pro-Zelaya broadcast stations that has been occupied in recent months.

Zelaya also called for an end to the siege on the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa -- where his has taken refuge since his surprise return on September 21.

Separately, in a telephone call Zelaya urged some 300 supporters to "peacefully demonstrate" against the regime on Monday.

Juan Barahona, the leader of the pro-Zelaya Resistance Front, vowed to defy demonstration bans. "We are not going to stay at our homes ... they want to lock us up and have failed to do that," he said.

The developments come after Micheletti agreed to resume negotiations this week in order to end the crisis that erupted after the June 28 military Coup d'etat , in which Zelaya was ousted at gunpoint and kicked out of the country in his nightshirt.

by **John Schröder** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:45 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world ... .html?_r=1

Rosamaria Valeriano Flores was returning home from a visit to a public health clinic and found herself in a crowd of people dispersing from a demonstration in support of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya. As she crossed the central square of the Honduran capital, a group of soldiers and police officers pushed her to the ground and beat her with their truncheons.

She said the men kicked out most of her top teeth, broke her ribs and split open her head. “A policeman spit in my face and said, ‘You will die,’ ” she said, adding that the attack stopped when a police officer shouted at the men that they would kill her.

Ms. Valeriano, 39, was sitting in the office of a Tegucigalpa human rights group last week, speaking about the assault, which took place on Aug. 12. As she told her story, mumbling to hide her missing teeth, she pointed to a scar on her scalp and to her still-sore left ribs.

Since Mr. Zelaya was removed in a June 28 coup, security forces have tried to halt opposition with beatings and mass arrests, human rights groups say. Eleven people have been killed since the coup, according to the Committee for Families of the Disappeared and Detainees in Honduras, or Cofadeh.

The number of violations and their intensity has increased since Mr. Zelaya secretly returned to Honduras two weeks ago, taking refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, human rights groups say.

The groups describe an atmosphere of growing impunity, one in which security forces act unhindered by legal constraints. Their free hand had been strengthened by an emergency decree allowing the police to detain anyone suspected of posing a threat.

“In the 1980s, there were political assassinations, torture and disappearances,” said Bertha Oliva, Cofadeh’s general coordinator, in an interview last week, recalling the political repression of the country’s so-called dirty war. “They were selective and hidden. But now there is massive repression and defiance of the whole world. They do it in broad daylight, without any scruples, with nothing to stop them.”

Amid the crackdown, a delegation of foreign ministers from the Organization of American States is scheduled to arrive in the capital, Tegucigalpa, on Wednesday in an attempt to restart negotiations between representatives for Mr. Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti, the de facto president.

In advance of the meeting, Mr. Micheletti lifted the decree Monday.

The abuses could have a chilling effect on presidential elections scheduled for Nov. 29. The de facto government and its supporters argue that the elections will close the chapter on the coup and its aftermath, but the United Nations, the United States and other governments have said that they will not recognize the vote if it is conducted under the current conditions.

“Elections are a risk because people won’t vote,” said Javier Acevedo, a lawyer with the Center for Research and the Promotion of Human Rights in Tegucigalpa. “The soldiers and police at the polls will be the same ones as those who have been carrying out the repression.”

Investigators from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights visited in August, and found a pattern of disproportionate force, arbitrary detentions and control of information.

The group asked the de facto government to provide protective measures for dozens of politicians, union leaders, teachers, human rights workers and journalists who say they have been followed and threatened.

The de facto government responded that strong measures were needed against Mr. Zelaya’s supporters, whom they described as vandals, a point backed up by government television advertisements showing burning buses and street barricades. Some of the demonstrations have turned violent as some of Mr. Zelaya’s supporters have smashed storefronts and burned tires at street barricades. The government says that three people have been killed since the coup.

Mr. Micheletti has said the investigators from the Inter-American Commission were biased, noting that its president, Luz Patricia Mejía, is Venezuelan. Much of Honduras’s political and economic elite feared that Mr. Zelaya was trying to copy Venezuela’s brand of socialism as he moved toward an alliance with that nation’s president, Hugo Chávez.

The Honduran government’s human rights institutions have failed to respond to the violations with any vigor, advocates say.

The human rights prosecutor, Sandra Ponce, is on vacation, according to news reports. Ramón Custodio, the government human rights commissioner who fought repression in the 1980s, has generally supported the coup, although he has criticized some actions of the de facto government.

Groups that were vulnerable to human rights abuses before the coup face even more risk now. Since the coup, for example, there have been six murders of gay men or transvestites, according to gay rights groups. Until 2008, the average number of such killings each year was three to six.

The day after Mr. Zelaya returned, the police broke up a demonstration by his supporters outside the Brazilian Embassy with tear gas. As people were fleeing, security forces tear-gassed the Cofadeh office, just blocks away. The action, Ms. Oliva believes, was aimed at preventing Cofadeh lawyers from intervening by taking testimony or seeking the release of people who were detained.

Since Mr. Zelaya’s return, security forces also have been rumbling through poor neighborhoods that are the base of his support. “They are going into neighborhoods in a way to intimidate people,” said Mr. Acevedo, the lawyer. In that time, the center has documented an increasing level of violence. Investigators have seen more than two dozen people with bullet wounds in hospitals, and some detainees have had their hands broken and have been burned with cigarettes, he said.

While the police and soldiers are looking for the activists who have been organizing resistance, the sweep seems to pick up anyone who gets in their way.

Yulian Lobo said her husband was arrested in the neighborhood of Villa Olímpica and accused of having a grenade. “It came out of nowhere,” she said, adding that her husband, a driver, had not been to pro-Zelaya marches.

Lesbia Marisol Flores, 38, is a resistance activist, but when the police beat her up, she was waiting at a bus stop after attending the wake of a 24-year-old woman who died after she was tear-gassed outside the Brazilian Embassy on Sept. 22.

“There were eight policemen and their faces were all covered,” she said, adding that they had selected her at random from the group at the bus stop. “There was no motive. It is their hobby now.”

Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

Who is online