Honduras Coup: Soldiers kidnap VZ, Cuba, Nicaragua envoys

[StarmanSkye]

They ARE desperate; Utterly shameful, the coup-regime showing their true colours.


http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/20 ... chive.html

--quote--
Friday, September 25, 2009
Military Gases Brazilian Embassy

Telesur reports the miltary began throwing some kind of gas grenades into the Brazillian embassy this morning and blocking the admission of food and water. They've also cut the electricity again, and are blocking cell phone service from inside the embassy at this time.

Symptoms of the gas include bleeding from the nose, vomitting, diarhea, fainting, headaches.

Manuel Zelaya told the AFP that he had asked the Red Cross to visit, and has called on the UN to send a toxicologist to help determine the nature of the gas. He speculated that it was a gas the military use to get people to come out of buildings. He said they have evidence to present to the UN about the source and nature of the gas. Radio Globo is currently transmitting a press conference in which he is showing the press his evidence of the devices that deliver the gas.

About 25-30 people in the Brazilian embassy are affected.

All of this is a violation of the Vienna Convention but the law doesn't matter to facists like Micheletti.

In the meantime, the UN Security Council called on the de facto government to cease its relentless pursuit of the Brazilian Embassy and to resume the supply of services and access to the Brazilian embassy. They specified that the electricity, water, food, and access to continuous communications be restored

[John Schröder]

http://granma.co.cu/english/news/art0034.html

A REVOLUTION IN THE MAKING

Last July 16, I literally said that the coup d’état in Honduras "was conceived and organized by unscrupulous characters on the far-right who were officials in the confidence of George W. Bush and had been promoted by him."

I mentioned the names of Hugo LLorens, Robert Blau, Stephen McFarland and Robert Callahan, Yankee ambassadors to Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua appointed by Bush in the months of July and August 2008; the four pursued the line of John Negroponte and Otto Reich, two characters with an ominous history.

I then indicated that the Yankee base at Soto Cano had provided the main backup to the coup and that "the idea of a peace initiative from Costa Rica was transmitted to the president of that country from the State Department when Obama was in Moscow and he was declaring at a Russian university that the only president of Honduras was Manuel Zelaya," and added: "With the Costa Rica meeting, the authority of the UN, the OAS and the other institutions that committed their support to the people of Honduras is being questioned." "The only correct thing to do at this moment is to demand that the government of the United States ceases its intervention, stops giving military aid to the coup and pulls out its Task Force from Honduras."

The US response to the coup d’état in that Central American country has been to strike an agreement with the government of Colombia in order to set up seven military bases similar to that of Soto Cano in that sister nation thus menacing Venezuela, Brazil and every other people in South America.

At a critical moment, when the tragedy of the climate change and the international economic crisis are under discussion at a UN summit conference of heads of States, the putschists in Honduras are threatening the immunity of the Brazilian Embassy where President Zelaya, his family and a group of followers were forced to seek sanctuary.

The fact is that the government of Brazil had absolutely nothing to do with the situation created there.

Consequently, it is inadmissible --actually inconceivable-- that the Brazilian Embassy may be assaulted by the fascist government, unless it intends to commit suicide dragging the country to a direct intervention of foreign forces, --as it was the case in Haiti—which would mean the intervention of Yankee troops under the UN flag. Honduras is not a remote isolated country in the Caribbean. An intervention in Honduras with foreign forces would unleash a conflict in Central America and bring political chaos to the entire Latin American region.

The heroic struggle of the Honduran people during almost 90 days of ceaseless battle has placed the fascist pro-Yankee government, which is crushing unarmed men and women, in a critical situation.

We have seen the emergence of a new conscience among the Honduran people. Legions of social fighters have gained experience in that battle. Zelaya delivered on his promise to return. He is entitled to his position in the government and to preside over the elections. New and admirable cadres are outstanding in the combative social movements; they are capable of leading that people through the hazardous journey ahead of the peoples of Our America.

A Revolution is in the making there.

The current session of the United Nations General Assembly can be a historic one depending on its rights and/or wrongs.

The world leaders have presented very interesting and complex subjects, which reflect the enormity of the tasks facing humanity and the little time available.

[John Schröder]

http://quotha.net/node/386

They are using chemical and electronic weapons prohibited by the United Nations and committing crimes against humanity, violating the Vienna treaty and the human rights of the people inside and around the embassy.

From Tuesday the 22nd the army has been using a long range acoustic device that affects hearing and produces severe headaches and damage to internal organs and the organism.

http://tinyurl.com/yc7pkvw

[John Schröder]

http://www.miller-mccune.com/media/hond ... press-1484

Canard d'Etat: Honduras and the U.S. Press

Think the fallacies in America's health care debate are slippery? Try catching the red herring that's fouling up U.S. press coverage of the Honduran coup.

By: Kirk Nielsen

A canard infiltrated the pages of the finest U.S. newspapers in late June and continues to undermine the first draft of 2009 Honduran coup history and the sovereignty of good journalism in the United States. Logicians might call it a bare assertion fallacy or a false dilemma. As all fallacies, this one thrives from an error in reasoning — and from errors in reporting and editing.

The canard goes something like this:

Efforts by President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras to remove term limits were the cause of a military coup in the Central American nation in June.

That sentence, which appeared in the Aug. 26 edition of The New York Times, was from an Agence France Presse brief about Colombian president Alvaro Uribe's push to stay in power for a third term. It implies that Zelaya, too, was trying to extend his presidency by removing term limits and presents this as fact. But it's not one.

Indeed, sometimes this stay-in-power-by-ending-term-limits canard is attributed to "critics" or "opponents" of Zelaya (including interim president Roberto Micheletti, who lost to Zelaya in the Liberal Party's presidential primary in 2005), and followed by a denial, as in this excerpt of an Aug. 28 article by Associated Press writer Juan Carlos Llorca.

Critics of Zelaya say he was planning to extend his time in office by removing a ban on presidential re-election. Zelaya denies he was seeking to extend his term.

I stumbled upon the canard while simply trying to understand articles published in the run-up to June 28, when Honduran soldiers arrested Zelaya in the early morning hours and summarily flew him to Costa Rica in his pajamas. Like most Americans, the news caught me unawares. Several weeks earlier, while scanning headlines on the Internet, I'd been surprised to learn that Honduras had joined the list of Latin American countries with an elected leftist president. But that was about all I knew.

Here's part of an account AP writer Freddy Cuevas provided for June 26, two days before the coup:

Zelaya has the vocal support of his fellow leftist Latin American leaders as he seeks to follow in the path of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in transforming his country through a constitutional overhaul. The Venezuelan leader and former Cuban President Fidel Castro have warned a coup is under way in Honduras and pledged their support for Zelaya.

Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek.

I found it odd that Zelaya had not specified what changes he would seek, and strange that reporters hadn't badgered some specifics out of him by then, what with all the controversy. But even stranger was that somehow Zelaya's critics were certain of one change he was plotting, as Cuevas reported in the next sentence:

His opponents fear he will try to extend his rule by lifting a constitutional ban on presidential re-election.

Now how's a president going to lift a constitutional ban, I wondered. And then I stopped to think for a few seconds. Presidents can't lift constitutional bans in a democracy. Not in the United States, not in Honduras. A congress or a constituent assembly would have to do that. Right? How did Zelaya's opponents explain he could do it and when? What had Zelaya to say about their fear? The article left all these questions unanswered.

Cuevas continued:

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

Now hold on. Zelaya is staging a vote with no legal effect, and yet a military coup is in the works? That doesn't add up. Next sentence:

The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.

In other words, the plebiscite would have no legal force, yet the judicial and legislative branches deemed it illegal. And what was Zelaya's opinion of those rulings? How does he explain what he's up to? Again, the article doesn't say.

In fact, I couldn't find any quotes of Zelaya answering his critics about the legality or purpose of his referendum plans in the best U.S. newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and The Miami Herald. Was he not speaking to the press?

Oh, except that he did.

El Pais, Sunday June 28, 2009 (Coup Day)
Excerpts from a 1,300-word Q&A of President Zelaya by special correspondent Pablo Ordaz, conducted in Spanish on June 27, one day after Zelaya fired the top general in the armed forces:

Ordaz: The opposition says that what is really behind the vote on Sunday is your intention to remain in power.
Zelaya: Look...Honestly. I don't have any option for staying in power. The only way would be to break the constitutional order, and I'm not going to do that.
Ordaz: Is that your word?
Zelaya: Yes, I'm going to end my government on January 27, 2010. That's what I am going to do. But I'm going to leave behind a process to open democracy, open the possibility for a president to be re-elected in the future. Although I don't know if by then I'm going to be available.
....
Ordaz: What's your model?
Zelaya: Look. I've positioned myself in the center-left as a government because I practice liberal ideas, but with a socialist, social, tendency, very closely tied to integrating the citizen with his rights.
Ordaz: But you aren't a man who came from the left...
Zelaya: That is so. In fact, I come from very conservative sectors.
Ordaz: And at what point did you fall off the horse?
Zelaya: Ha, ha. No, rather, at what point did I get on the horse...Look, I had planned to make changes from within the neo-liberal framework. But the rich won't cede a penny. They won't cede any of their money. They want it all for themselves. So, logically, to make changes one has to incorporate the people.
....
Ordaz: Why have you been left so isolated, president?
Zelaya: It's because we're talking about the bourgeois State. The economic elites comprise the bourgeois State. They are at the top of the armies, parties, judges, and that bourgeois State feels vulnerable when I start to propose that the people have a voice and a vote.
Ordaz: How are the moments of crisis that you've lived through in these latest hours going to change you politically, but also personally?
Zelaya: [He stays quiet.] What am I going to change? If I emerge strengthened [from the vote] this Sunday. ...Perhaps I'll have to create closer ties with the groups with power. I'll have to create closer ties with them and convince them. Tell them that I'm not against them, that this is a historic process, that they have to cooperate. ...They have to understand that poverty won't be eliminated until the poor people make the laws.

Constitutional Crisis — Or Not?
Back in the U.S. press, though, we weren't getting so much as a peep from Zelaya or anyone else in his administration. As a result, across the United States, newspapers are presenting a canard — that Zelaya's stated intent was to break the constitutional order and stay in power — as a fact.

President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was ousted by the army on Sunday, capping months of tensions over his efforts to lift presidential term limits.

That's the lead from Elisabeth Malkin's article in the June 29 New York Times. Further down:

The arrest of Mr. Zelaya was the culmination of a battle that had been simmering for weeks over a referendum, which was to have taken place Sunday, that he hoped would lead to a revision of the Constitution.

Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution's limit of a single four-year term for the president.

And what had Zelaya said the attempt was part of? This article also eschews words from the man, members of his administration, supporters, or even an academic-type who could encapsulate Zelaya's previous rhetoric about the referendum or his take on the Supreme Court's decision about it. The last paragraph offers a sense of who's behind him but no hint why.

Mr. Zelaya, 56, a rancher who often appears in cowboy boots and a western hat, has the support of labor unions and the poor. But the middle class and the wealthy business community fear he wants to introduce Mr. Chávez's brand of socialist populism into the country, one of Latin America's poorest.

Of course, this was Mr. Zelaya's brand of socialist populism, not Chavez's. Fear of Chavez was real, though, according to Bruce Bagley, a political scientist at the University of Miami's Department of International Studies who specializes in Latin American security matters. I'd e-mailed him for help deciphering the articles I was reading, and learned they were vexing him as well.

So, the term-limit accusation against Zelaya is, in fact, a canard? I asked. "Yes," he wrote back. "He never formally sought to change the law."

Then I got him on the phone, and he explained what the coup was really about. "Zelaya's conversion was not so much ideological as it was pragmatic and opportunistic," Bagley said. "Hugo Chavez offered a substantial subsidy in petroleum to Honduras, which is a petroleum importing country. That kind of subsidy was not being offered by the United States. And in fact Zelaya saw the opportunity to improve the well-being of the poorest of the poor in his country, not only with petroleum but also with Cuban doctors, and he seized on the opportunity. That scared the pants off of the right-wing oligarchy that has dominated throughout the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century in his country. And they reacted as they did during the Cold War with military intervention."

Also real was the Honduran corporate sector's fear that a Zelaya win on June 28 would foment mass momentum for calling a constituent assembly that would be hard to reverse.

"Whether or not he could have called a constituent assembly was really up to the congress," Bagley told me. "But the congress and Micheletti, I think, felt that they might lose this. So they decided to act pre-emptively, to accuse the president of violating the constitution when he had not done so. To add to that, that he had the intention of violating the constitution, which of course is counterfactual, and could not be proven."

Still, I was skeptical because of all the reportage stating he had violated the Honduran constitution. So I found a copy of it online. Article 42 does state that anyone who "incites, promotes, or supports the continuation or re-election of the President of the Republic" loses his or her citizenship. According to his remarks to El Pais, Zelaya wasn't inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or re-election of the president (i.e. himself). His June 28 vote was nonbinding, his stated intention to leave office at the end of his term. No one reading accounts in the top U.S. newspapers would have known that, though.

Nor would they have known what his decree did or didn't state. I obtained a copy of it, too. (To see it, click on the PDFs below "Resources" box in the right-hand column of this page.) First, it contains a flowery populist preamble, noting that under Articles 2 and 5 of the constitution "the powers of the state and government emanate from the people"; that "Honduran society has experienced substantial and significant changes in the past 27 years" that demand "a new constitutional framework"; and that the Citizen Participation Law of 2006 requires the inclusion of every citizen "in the execution and evaluation of all the policies and acts of the State."

Then it orders a "national opinion poll," to be conducted by the National Institute of Statistics no later than June 28, that asks the Honduran citizenry only the following ballot question:

Do you agree that in the general elections of 2009 a Fourth Ballot should be installed in which the public decides whether to convoke a National Constituent Assembly?

The decree makes no mention of term limits or re-election or anything of the sort.

And yet all across the U.S. we're getting articles that state or imply that a vote to lift term limits was imminent and threatening to keep Zelaya in office. Had everything gone Zelaya's way on June 28 — and a majority approved the constituent assembly question — he still couldn't have won re-election under his stated referendum plan. That's because on the same November day that voters would approve the call for a future constituent assembly, they would also elect a new president from a list of six candidates, none of whom would have been Zelaya — owing to the constitution's one-term limit. There may have been ways for Zelaya to try to stay in power for a second term, but holding a November referendum on whether to convene a constituent assembly isn't one of them.

"That's tough to explain in a short article, so we condense," a reporter for one major U.S. newspaper told me. "And sometimes we condense too much."

Helene Cooper in Washington and Marc Lacey in Tegucigalpa cranked out a nice long piece for the June 30 print edition of The New York Times. But again, no quotes or paraphrases from Zelaya about the charges against him, and again oversimplification of his constituent assembly push turned accusation (that he was trying to end the term limit) into fact.

Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits escalated.

The story then offered some previously unreported gossip involving Zelaya and Hillary Rodham Clinton ...

On June 2, Obama administration officials got a firsthand look at the brewing political battle when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Honduras for an Organization of American States conference. Mrs. Clinton met with Mr. Zelaya, and he reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family.

... before returning to reportage related to the legal issues and once again omitting any Zelaya perspective:

During a more formal meeting afterward, they discussed Mr. Zelaya's plans for a referendum that would have laid the groundwork for an assembly to remake the Constitution, a senior administration official said.

But American officials did not believe that Mr. Zelaya's plans for the referendum were in line with the Constitution, and were worried that it would further inflame tensions with the military and other political factions, administration officials said.

Even so, one administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.

How to explain the persistence of the term-limits canard and the U.S. press's complacency, if not complicity, with it?

"I think these people have their blinders on because of their animus to the ALBA countries," Bagley said of my fellow American journalists. "They're drawn to the example of Hugo Chavez, which everybody agrees is an example of someone moving toward the authoritarian left. I agree with that. I think he's circumscribing freedom of the press. He's expropriating media. He's doing all kinds of arbitrary things. Zelaya did none of that."

Bagley also thinks Zelaya, whom he describes as a "clown, a loudmouth and a grandstander," has helped sow confusion. "He has been singularly inarticulate in laying out his position," Bagley observed. "He has failed to have his advisers lay out the legal case clearly for all of this, which he should have done and should be continuing to harp on. He should also point out that it's perfectly legal to call a constituent assembly. Zelaya is at fault for not laying out this clearly."

Asked why there was a lack of new or archived Zelaya statements about the legal issues in the coverage, another journalist told me, "I was basically working crazy hours on the fly on breaking news and did not really have the luxury of digging up clips or doing extensive research."

That disclaimer sounds like a symptom of "churnalism," a byproduct of newspaper retrenchment and a topic British journalist Nick Davies explores in his book Flat Earth News. Staff reductions create overburdened reporters and editors, who are scrambling increasingly to produce the quantities of content more bodies used to provide. Fact-checking and old-fashioned depth reporting are sacrificed.

"An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda," Davies writes.

U.S. press coverage of the April 2002 coup that ousted Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's elected president, for two days was much more diligent in representing both sides. One explanation is that major U.S. papers had reporters based in Caracas because Venezuela, under Chavez, was the source of an ongoing news narrative; thus their journalism was simply better informed. A leading canard put forth by anti-Chavistas — that widespread anti-Chavez protests had forced Chavez to resign and thus the coup wasn't really a coup — was obliterated by events. For example, in contrast to their Honduran counterparts, Venezuelan civilian and military leaders behind the coup had dissolved the congress and fired the supreme court. Also, journalists quoted Chavez's denials that he had resigned and then couldn't avoid reporting the news that a group of pro-Chavez military officers, encouraged by large numbers of pro- Chavez protesters, reinstated him.

Hearing From the Other Side
An Aug. 6 article by AP writers Morgan Lee and Alexandra Olson finally provided some verbiage from Zelaya's perspective. It still didn't come from the man himself, but at least they had interviewed a senior member of his administration. Lo and behold, that official debunked the canard that the president was seeking re-election with his referendum plan; he also offered a big new insight into what Zelaya thought it could do for him.

Victor Meza, who served as Zelaya's interior minister, acknowledged that the president miscalculated.

"The impression that stuck with the traditional political class and with the most conservative business leaders of the country was that Zelaya had taken a dangerous turn to the left, and therefore that their interests were in jeopardy," he said. "We underestimated the conservatism of the Honduran political class and the military leadership."

When Zelaya called a referendum on June 28 to ask the public to support a constitutional assembly, opponents accused him of trying to abolish term limits and extend his rule, like Chavez did in Venezuela. Zelaya denies that. Meza said he didn't want immediate re-election, though he hoped to lay the groundwork for a return to the presidency in 2012.

Two weeks later, a McClatchy Newspapers report by Tyler Bridges perpetuated the canard but was one of the first in the U.S. press to provide the Zelaya perspective on the impossibility of seating a constituent assembly before he left office:

The political problems began after Zelaya veered left in the middle of his four-year term and embraced the socialist anti-poverty program of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a fierce U.S. critic. Zelaya worsened matters by pushing for a June 28 vote giving Hondurans the chance to say whether they supported calling a special body to rewrite the country's constitution.

Virtually all of Honduras's major institutions lined up against him, saying that the country's current constitution did not permit the vote. They suspected that Zelaya was bent on making changes so he could seek another term as president, as Mr. Chávez and his allies have done.

Zelaya's supporters say any modification of the constitution wouldn't have taken place until after he left office in January.

Canard Still Alive
The coup narrative eventually shifted away from the causes of the overthrow to mounting international efforts to return Zelaya to office for the rest of his term. But the canard is still wreaking havoc in the best U.S. newspapers, as if the untenable prospect of a term-limit law change before Zelaya left office — and not the imminence of a nonbinding June 28 vote certain to mobilize the nation's impoverished majority and jeopardize the wealthy elite — prompted the coup.

Here's how AP's Freddy Cuevas condensed, and thereby distorted, the legal dispute in a Sept. 1 article:

Most of Zelaya's own Liberal party supported his ouster, accusing him of seeking to eliminate a constitutional ban on presidential re-election, as Chavez and other Latin American leftist leaders have done. Zelaya denies that was his intention.

Wrong twice. According to the El Pais interview and the Aug. 6 article by Cuevas's fellow AP writers, Zelaya was hoping a constituent assembly would eliminate a ban on presidential re-election — after he left office. As usual, the Sept. 1 update has nothing further from the Zelaya side to debunk the canard, like noting that by the time a new constituent assembly was seated someone else would be president. Or how about a sentence like "Zelaya has stated he intends to step down when his term ends next January"?

In the Sept. 3 New York Times, an informative, well-written article by Ginger Thompson on Zelaya's visit to Washington actually quoted him, but not about the term-limit confusion. Again, reporter and editors left the canard unrevealed.

The longer the political crisis in Honduras continues, the more of a conundrum it threatens to create for Mr. Obama. A handful of congressional Republicans, backed by a well-connected group of lawyers and lobbyists, have mobilized in support of the de facto government, accusing Mr. Zelaya of illegally trying to change the Constitution so that he could run for another term.

There — right after that paragraph — was a perfect juncture for a line or two from Zelaya explaining the legalities of his referendum actions and what the heck he thought he would accomplish by them.

In some quarters, the first draft of coup history seems to be getting more tendentious, not less. A Sept. 8 Honduran coup update that Tyler Bridges filed, from Caracas, for The Miami Herald and McClatchy Newspapers contained 11 assertions by Micheletti government officials that reporter and editors allowed to go unanswered by the Zelaya side. The article led with the (non-) news that Micheletti and his interim government were still "dead-set against" allowing Zelaya to serve the last five months of his term. Then it (accurately) outlines the referendum-related accusations against Zelaya.

The Micheletti government, a majority of the Honduran Congress and powerful civil and business groups say they can't trust Zelaya to keep his word under the Arias plan. All are convinced he would push for a measure aimed at rewriting the constitution so he could be president again. Micheletti and his supporters say Zelaya repeatedly violated the law by trying to hold a plebiscite that would have permitted a vote for the new constitution.

But on this one, reporter and editors were too busy to find the time or place for even a perfunctory "Zelaya denies it" sentence.

There was room in the second paragraph, however, for some new allegations from the Micheletti camp: that Zelaya had "illegally used public money to keep horses, buy watches and jewelry, and repair his Harley-Davidson motorcycle." Again, reporter and editors left them unanswered by Zelaya or members of his deposed administration.

The conventional wisdom about Latin America coverage has long been that the U.S. press pays scant attention to the region until there's a crisis. And then it pays only a little more heed. Perhaps the term-limit canard is a sign that this chronic indifference endures. "I think nobody gives a damn about Honduras," Bagley offers, in sum.

Maybe readers would, though, if the highest caliber newspapers in the U.S. targeted issues surrounding the subversion of democracy in the third-poorest country in our hemisphere with a fraction of the firepower they used so excellently to expose warrantless surveillance directives, credit default swaps and mark-to-market accounting in the United States.

Editors? How about a decent 1,300-word Q&A of Zelaya for an upcoming Sunday edition?

[John Schröder]

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

Honduras: Lawyers Question Basis of Zelaya Ouster

Written by Jennifer Moore
Friday, 25 September 2009

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

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

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

Building upon observations pertaining to human rights violations detailed in the report, the National Lawyers Guild released a press bulletin on Tuesday concerning the de facto government's most recent abuses since Zelaya arrived at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa on Monday. Coup leader Roberto Micheletti used Zelaya's reutrn as a pretext to unleash a new wave of aggression by his security forces against Hondurans opposed to the coup. The Guild also expressed special concern for threats to the life of the democratically-elected president.

Zelaya's arrival, it concludes, should motivate the US to denounce the violence, further isolate the de facto regime and "no longer avoid officially declaring a military coup d'etat." The Guild also urges UN bodies, including the UN Security Council and the UN Economic and Social Council, to "initiate proceedings for an economic blockade" and to "consider deploying a peacekeeping mission to facilitate the return to power of the legitimate constitutionally elected government." The UN already announced Wednesday that it would withdraw all support for upcoming elections on November 29th.[2] The UN Security Council is also anticipated to make an announcement this week.[3]

Dangerous Territory: Constitutional Reform

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

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

The speed with which the Supreme Court processed legal measures to block the survey raised suspicions among the delegation. "In contrast to the speed with which they acted against the constitutionally elected President Zelaya, [the Supreme Court] has not made any decisions with regard to any legal process since then - up until this report was drafted [on September 12th] - to sanction those responsible for violations of the constitution and legal order [as a result of the coup]."

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

Concerns over weaknesses in Honduras' judiciary have been raised before. The Inter American Human Rights Commission has criticized the country for lack of an independent and efficient judiciary, notes another member of the delegation. Furthermore, a report from Freedom House states, "The judicial branch of government in Honduras is subject to intervention and influence by both the elected branches and wealthy private interests." [4] The US State Department profile of Honduras also mentions that "Although the constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence." [5]

Also worrisome to the delegation was the contrast found between the ease with which Zelaya's ouster was executed and the delays in addressing civil society requests for habeas corpus and constitutional protection as a result of police and military excesses over the last three months.

Human Rights Commissioner Compromised

Human rights abuses have escalated again this week since Zelaya's arrival on Monday. The de facto regime has enforced a continuing military curfew, while state security forces have arbitrarily detained, beaten and even killed people. The security of the Brazilian Embassy where Zelaya is staying has also been threatened. The international group of lawyers raises deep concerns about the significant rise in human rights violations since June 28 and observes the lack of attention to such grievances by state institutions such as the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the Human Rights Commissioner's Office.

While visiting Honduras, the delegation received complaints about violations of political and civil rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Among those they report are violations of the right to life, physical integrity, liberty of expression, access to information, the freedom of association and due legal process. They also received testimonies concerning cruel and degrading treatment against women and abusive treatment of minors, including forced military recruitment among poor sectors of the population.

Additionally, they note at least four deaths since the coup, although other estimates were up to about 11 at the start of this week. [6] In this context, they point out, "A lack of will on the part of the public attorney's office to immediately and diligently investigate what took place in order to bring those responsible to justice, which contrasts with the swiftness and efficiency with which governmental organisms processed claims against the deposed president."

They also concluded that many people have avoided presenting complaints to the National Human Rights Commissioner's office given that the Commissioner is an open supporter of the coup. Instead people were forced to file reports to civil society organizations such as the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras (COFADEH) because of a lack of confidence that their cases would be properly addressed.

Seeing such weaknesses in human rights protection by the state since the coup, the lawyers' report recommends that "organisms such as the National Human Rights Commissioner, whose mandate is specifically to protect human rights, be led by persons committed to the defense of human rights and not by those who have declared themselves in favor of the coup, such as is the case with Commissioner Dr. Ramón Custodio."

Custodio was quoted by Europa Press this week openly criticizing international human rights delegations, accusing them of having political interests in trying to make a victim out of Honduras and stating that they, including participants of an upcoming mission from the UN, "are looking for a mechanism to once again aggrieve the Honduran people." [7]

Serious human rights violations and the use of excessive force by state forces have been documented and denounced in recent months by the International Federation of Human Rights, the Inter American Human Rights Commission (an autonomous body of the Organization of American States), Amnesty International and now Human Rights Watch (HRW). Yesterday, the Spanish news agency EFE reported that HRW "asked the OAS to demand the government of Robert Micheletti to desist in applying force against protesters and to guarantee fundamental human rights." They noted one confirmed death this week and at least 150 arbitrary detentions. A HRW representative also mentioned four unconfirmed deaths as a result of police violence in Tegucigalpa. [8]

Whereas coup leaders lacked constitutional grounds upon which to oust Zelaya, those in Honduras who oppose the coup do have the right to insurrection. Article 3 of their 1982 Political Constitution states, "No one owes obedience to a government which usurps power nor those who assume public functions or employment through the use of arms or through means or processes that break or fail to recognize what the constitution and laws establish. The verified acts of such authorities are null. The people [of this country] have the right to recur to insurrection in defence of constitutional order."

The pro-democracy movement, perhaps the least anticipated outcome of the coup, has now managed to sustain itself for almost 90 days.

The World's Turn

Finally, members of the American Association of Jurists, the National Lawyer's Guild, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the International Association against Torture conclude their report by calling upon the international community to echo efforts toward the restoration of democratic order in Honduras, and ultimately the region, by concertedly promoting the unconditional return of President Manuel Zelaya.

Indicating the need for ongoing human rights vigilance and accompaniment in the current period, they insist that upcoming elections not be recognized and that much stronger economic sanctions be implemented.

They further add that resulting abuses "cannot remain in impunity" and recommend that an international tribunal be established to try those responsible. Furthermore, given the brutality with which state forces have come down on Honduran people in recent months, they propose that reforms be considered "to assure the subordination of the armed forces to civil society, including that proposals that could result in the elimination of the armed forces and their permanent abolition be studied such as has taken place in Panama and Costa Rica."

Notes:

1. For news and updates from the delegation: www.nlginternational.org
2. "ONU suspende asistencia a elecciones en Honduras" Prensa Latina, 23 September 2009; http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?o ... 3&Itemid=1
3. "Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU se pronunciara sobre el Golpe en Honduras" Pulsar, 23 September 2009; http://www.agenciapulsar.org/nota.php?id=15869
4. "Countries at the Crossroads 2007: Honduras" Freedom House; http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,, ... 25c,0.html
5. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100644.htm
6. "The Road to Zelaya's Return" Ben Dangl, Truthout, 22 September 2009; http://www.truthout.org/092209A
7. "Gobierno 'de facto' denuncia que los relatores de DDHH de la ONU 'buscan un instrumento para agredir'" Europa Press 19 September 2009; http://www.europapress.es/latam/hondura ... 35625.html
8. "Human Rights Watch pide a la OEA que exija el cese de la represion en Honduras" EFE 23 September 2009; http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/9/20090924 ... e34ad.html

[Hammer of Los]

This is beyond upsetting.

I have not the eloquence of starmansky.

Who the hell sells them this crap?

And not a peep out of BBC R4's domestic propaganda service about any of this. No, all we got a few weeks ago was how it wasnt really a coup, oh no. He was making changes to the constitution to become a dictator etc.

If I relied upon the BBC to keep me informed, I would be one ignorant mother.

[John Schröder]

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... sy-attacks

Honduran Coup Regime Mocks UN Security Council with Embassy Attacks

By Al Giordano



After today’s emergency session of the United Nations Security Council in New York, US Ambassador Susan Rice emerged to read a warning to the Honduras coup regime:

"We condemn acts of intimidation against the Brazilian embassy and call upon the de facto government of Honduras to cease harassing the Brazilian embassy.”

The wording is unequivocal. After investigating the claims (and the de facto regime’s denials) of constant technological and chemical attacks on the diplomatic seat in Tegucigalpa, an illegal impediment of ingress and egress to and from the embassy, where legitimate President Manuel Zelaya and at least 85 aides, supporters and some members of the news media are sheltered, the UN Security Council has concluded that said harassment is real and it is ongoing.

If the coup regime believed that its use of chemical and sonic devices would render its attacks less visible, it has already lost that gamble.

Article 31 of The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 is titled “Inviolability of the consular premises,” and states:

“Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article… The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State… the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity… The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility.”

Article 33 states: “The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be.”

Article 34, titled “Freedom of movement,” states: “the receiving State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all members of the consular post.

Article 35, titled “Freedom of communication,” states:

“The receiving State shall permit and protect freedom of communication on the part of the consular post for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government, the diplomatic missions and other consular posts, wherever situated, of the sending State, the consular post may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomatic or consular bags and messages in code or cipher… The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the consular post and its functions… The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained.”

In light of those international laws, the device you see in the photograph up top, deployed by Honduran coup regime security forces at the gates of the Brazilian Embassy, offers a smoking gun of proof that the regime is violating the Vienna Convention.

Narco News and its team of technical engineers and counter-surveillance consultants has identified the apparatus as the LRAD-RX Remote Long Range Acoustic Device, manufactured by the American Technologies Corporation.

The instrument is an offensive weapon, used on US Navy warships and by other nations, which can emit sounds that, “Through the use of powerful voice commands and deterrent tones, large safety zones can be created while determining the intent and influencing the behavior of an intruder.”

The LRAD-RX machine can shoot sounds of up to 151 decibels. According to the US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders sounds less loud than those it produces can cause Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL): “Sources of noise that can cause NIHL include motorcycles, firecrackers, and small firearms, all emitting sounds from 120 to 150 decibels. Long or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss. The louder the sound, the shorter the time period before NIHL can occur.”

The front of the device looks like this:



And this is the back of the device:



In other words, the LRAD-RX is the source of the high-pitched and painful sounds that have been pitched both at those inside the Brazilian Embassy and turned around when anti-coup demonstrators have tried to come close to it. As such, it interferes with the Vienna protected inviolability of the Embassy and its free communications.

Under international law, this violation already serves as sufficient justification for intervention by UN Peacekeeping Forces of the multinational kind that the country of Brazil has led in Haiti.

But that’s not all: Narco News has received the following photos of a C-guard LP Cellular telephone jamming device designed for low power indoor use. The black out range can be set to cover an area of 5 to 80 meters. The device was found inside the premises of the Brazilian embassy yesterday. Here it is, front:



And back:



(On Monday a large multitude of people, including journalists, including some from pro-coup news agencies, were able to enter the Brazilian Embassy to welcome or interview President Zelaya. It is possible that the cell phone jamming device was placed inside the premises then.)

Sold by Netline under the product category of "Counter Terror Electronic Warfare," the device, the company boasts, "C-Guard LP cellphone jammers block all required cellular network standards simultaneously: GSM, CDMA, TDMA, UMTS (3G), Nextel, 2.4 GHz and more."

The deployment of a cell phone jamming device is in direct violation of the Vienna Convention articles above protecting the inviolability of embassy and consular communications. What’s more, sources inside the embassy that are in constant direct contact with Narco News testify that prior to locating and removing the device, cell phones of the President, his aides and others in the building were impeded by much interference.

Additionally, around noon today, President Zelaya called a press conference inside the embassy, during which a medical doctor testified that two of the people staying inside the embassy displayed symptoms of bleeding from the nose or the stomach, and that a larger number of them displayed symptoms of nausea, throat and sinus irritation and related problems that can be caused by neuro-toxic gases used in chemical warfare that are also prohibited by international treaties.

Zelaya said, calmly and deliberatively, that upon awaking at 7:30 a.m., he had felt an unfamiliar irritation, “first in the mouth, next in the throat, and later a small pain in the stomach. I drank water and milk. And I came out to find others feeling sick. Since then we’ve been trying to figure out where it is coming from.”

Understanding the dramatic nature of this kind of warfare and its capacity to generate panic, fear and anger, Zelaya urged members of the anti-coup civil resistance, “Please, do not attack the police. Maintain yourselves at a respectable distance. Don’t come near enough to be beaten. Protest your grievances peacefully.”

Displaying the cell phone jamming device, President Zelaya said, “This apparatus is installed to interfere and practically act against all telephones inside the Embassy. We practically have a sonic intervention that could also be affecting the health and nerves of people inside."

“They have also aimed frequencies of high intensity against the Embassy. This is also to affect our psychological state. Other machines are installed in the neighboring houses, where the owners have been kicked out and the military has occupied them.”

Hortensia “Pichu” Zelaya, also inside the embassy, sent out this photograph, below, taken earlier today of a device, partly covered by a green plastic bag, that security forces erected from one of the neighboring properties in clear view and air stream of the Brazilian embassy. “As soon as we discovered it,” she wrote, “they immediately took it down.”



Father Andrés Tamayo, also inside the embassy, told reporters at the press conference that he witnessed that device first hand. It is not yet known what exactly it is, or why it was accompanied by a plastic bag, or whether some kind of substance or chemical agent or gas was inside the bag and aimed at the Brazilian embassy.

These evidences and the eye-witness testimonies, including that of the doctor and the priest, demonstrate convincingly that while the Honduran coup regime issues emphatic denials of such attacks on the sovereign embassy of Brazil, it is clearly engaging in them nonetheless. The UN Security Council should not need any high tech apparatus of its own to be able to see and hear what is really going on at ground level, and respond accordingly to the coup regime's mockery of it.

[John Schröder]

http://quotha.net/node/389

Honduras: Stop the use of chemical weapons by military forces
Juan Almendares

The occupants of the Brazilian Embassy accompanying President Manuel Zelaya Rosales, wife and family, as well as people in communities and protesters are being attacked with chemical weapons launched from helicopters or aircraft; and sophisticated sonic and electromagnetic radiation devices that produce severe diarrhea, vomiting, nosebleeds and gastrointestinal disorders.

The clinical symptoms manifested are consistent with the use of toxic substances such as: pesticides, chemical compounds and gases, radioactive substances like radioactive cesium and toxic mushrooms.

We are urgently appealing for an international medical mission and to the UN World Health Organization (WHO); this is an irregular war against the people of Honduras. The armed forces have not allowed access to the Brazilian Embassy for doctors or the International Red Cross; violating all treaties and international conventions on health, respect for human rights

Please make this urgent call on behalf of life and love of humanity.

Tegucigalpa September 24, 2009

http://quotha.net/node/390

"Sanitation Operation"

Abusing again the national emergency radio system, the de facto government unbelievably claims that the severe symptoms of chemical and audio attacks among the people trapped with President Zelaya in the Brazilian Embassy were the result of a routine cleaning operation using regular cleaning chemicals and loud machinery. In a completely militarized zone, blocked off to traffic. It boggles the mind.

[John Schröder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... micheletti

The ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, said after talks last night that there was no possibility of a deal with the military-backed government that ousted him.

[John Schröder]

The siege of Tegucigalpa

[StarmanSkye]

MAN, that Real News vid Seige of Tegucigalpa sure is inspiring!

Props to Al Giordono (sp?) for laying out the case about the Constitutional Referendum will be the only way out of the ongoing crisis which the Micheletti goons have only exacerbated by making one misjudgment after another, totally overestimating their actual power and ability to intimidate and threaten the populace into standing-down. They are totally discreditted by now.

If ONLY the crisis of legitimacy in the US could be 'solved' so readily; Instead, we need to demand complete equality before the law, so that our officials will be held accountable for their repeated criminality, without recourse to 'national security' exemptions and exclusions, and to eliminate the more outrageous abuses of perks and priveleges of power that pit the ruling elites against ordinary people. They forget, we need to remind them, they serve ONLY at our consent, or not at all.

Not least, we ALL need to realize the power we hold, and organize to use it effectively.

We have much to learn from the Honduran people.

[John Schröder]

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebo ... -be-judged

These are the Coup Leaders, They Will be Judged!

Posted by Kristin Bricker - July 21, 2009 at 1:23 am

(Editorial by the daily El Libertador of Honduras)



These are the coup leaders: 1) Carlos Flores Facussé; 2) Rafael Leonardo Callejas; 3) Cardenal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez; 4) Adolfo Facussé; 5) Armida de López Contreras; 6) Schucry Kafie; 7) Elvin Santos; 8) Emilio Larach; 9) Enrique Ortez Colindres; 10) Pastor Evelio Reyes; 11) Felícito Ávila; 12) José Alfredo Saavedra; 13) Jorge Canahuati; 14) Jorge Yllescas; 15) Juan Ferrera; 16) Juan Ramón Martínez; 17) Carlos López Contreras; 18) Billy Joya; 19) Ana Abarca; 20) Rafael Ferrari; 21) Juan José Pineda; 22) Vilma Morales; 23) Marcia Villeda; 24) Renato Álvarez; 25) Ramón Custodio; 26) Rafael Pineda Ponce; 27) Olban Valladares; 28) Pastor Oswaldo Canales; 29) Ricardo Maduro; 30) Romeo Vásquez Velásquez; 31) Porfirio Lobo Sosa; 32) Ricardo Álvarez; 33) Antonio Rivera; 34) Guillermo Pérez Cadalso; 35) Mauricio Villeda; 36) María Martha Díaz; 37) Antonio Tavel Otero; 38) Luis Rubí; 39) Toribio Aguilera; 40) Ramón Velásquez Nassar; 41) Elán Reyes Pineda; 42) Luz Ernestina Mejía; 43) Martha Lorena Casco; 44) Rodolfo Irías Navas; 45) Rigoberto Chang Castillo; 46) Mirna Castro; 47) Gabriela Núñez; 48) Hugo Llorens.

1. All of these people used their positions to plot, cause, or finance the breakdown of constitutional order with the kidnapping and extradition of President Zelaya, which culminated in the coup.

2. They are directly responsible for the deaths, injuries, imprisonment, and the unease imposed upon Honduran society; they have destroyed democracy and ruined Honduras' image nationally and internationally.

3. The coup leaders reactivated the anti-terrorist and anti-communist organization called the Alliance for Honduras' Progress (APROH), which operated in the 1980s. Their greed and lack of culture prevented them from understanding that the people are free to choose the political and ideological system that will offer them security and well-being.

Tegucigapla. This time their names and faces will go down in history, and Hondurans and citizens of the world will remember them. They will be judged by society and by national and international courts.

The coup plotters utilized variations on the mechanisms that the Alliance for Honduras' Progress (APROH) used in the 1980s. Under the guise of a business organization, it hid clear political doctrine of "low-intensity war against those who opposed the repression of the Sandinista government and against social discontent in Honduras. United States intelligence financed the organization through the Moon sect."

"Industrious Businessmen"

Nothing particularly "suspicious" is written in the APROH's statutes. A group of businessmen got together to study their problems, with a project to assist other sectors. The economic model that the associates defended was clear: they advocated laissez faire policies with few mechanisms of control and with many mechanisms to maximize profits.

The associates were required to "guard the confidentiality of the documents and information that they acquired through their participation in APROH activities and that divulging this information could cause harm to its members. [sic]

In the beginning of 1983, soon after its founding, APROH didn't draw attention to itself. It was seen as a new attempt to bring together Honduras' most conservative sectors. In November of that year, the newspaper "Tiempo" published one of those confidential "documents:" APROH was recommending to the Kissinger Commission, through a personal friend and aid to Kissinger, a military solution for Central America.

Yesterday and Today's Truth

Military fascism found its place in APROH--then in Gen. Alvarez, the president of that organization, and now [Gen.] Romeo Vasquez. As now, it was comprised of the country's far-right business class, although in reality more than being ideological they are corrupt businessmen who have gotten rich because they determine what happens or not in the country. They are the eternal scroungers who live off financial subsidies, they are the ones who obtain concessions and million-dollar debt forgiveness from the state. They are the ones who finance and control the political parties and use their influence to have power in the National Congress and in the courts. In short, they are the ones who have the country trapped and don't allow the advancement of other businessmen and marginalize the people because for them it's business as usual that they remain ignorant and hungry. It's easy for them to manipulate them with the corporate media, as they are doing with this coup.

At the end of 1983, [there was] a rumor that the United States embassy was concerned about what it saw as the consolidation of a pressure group within the country that was very conservative and very vulnerable to criticism, as is the case now. The coup leaders are once again a problem for the United States. Then, the APROH was dormant for many years, but it awoke on the morning of June 28, 2009, to carry out its work: overthrow the President, manipulate through the corporate media, extra-judicial executions that no one will know about, repression, and psychological war in order to confuse people.

Who Were the Members?

Gen. Gustavo Alvares was the boss, the man in charge of APROH. Rafael Leonardo Callejas admitted that when he was the APROH's Secretary of Student and Worker Affairs--which hoists the flag of anti-communism--he worked so that Osawlado Ramos Soto would be the rector of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH).

The Moon Sect, a well-known religious organization, collaborated with this organization.

The APROH was created by Álvarez Martínez during the Roberto Suazo Córdova administration as the precursor to the Security Doctrine and responsible for dozens of political assassinations and disappearances in the country. José Rafael Ferrari, Miguel Facussé, Fernando Casanova, Rigoberto Espinal Irías, Benjamín Villanueva and ex-union leaders Andrés Víctor Artiles and Mariano González were also members.

Osmond Maduro, brother of the ex-president and coup leader Ricardo Maduro Joest, was also a member, [as well as] national and international bankers; textile and chemical industry, agribusiness, and television barons; and the technocrats. All of them were represented in the APROH.

Now look on this page at the coup leaders; they are members of the new APROH. There is no difference between them and those of the past. Some of them are even the same: Miguel Facussé, Rafael Leonardo Callejas y José Rafael Ferrari.

[John Schröder]

http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2009/07/ ... -honduras/

Our Man In Honduras

Roberto Lovato



“If you want to understand who the real power behind the [Honduran] coup is” says Robert White, president of the Washington-based Center for International Policy, during a recent interview, “you need to find out who’s paying Lanny Davis.”

Davis, an ally of the Clinton family who is best known as the lawyer who defended Bill during the presidential impeachment proceedings, was recently on Capitol Hill lobbying members of Congress and testifying against exiled President Manuel Zelaya before the House Foreign Relations Committee. White, who previously served as the United States ambassador to El Salvador, thought that such information about Davis’ clients would be “very difficult to find.”

But the answer proved easy to find. Davis, a partner at the law firm Orrick, Herring, & Sutcliffe, openly named them — and his clients are the same powerful Hondurans behind the military coup.

“My clients represent the CEAL, the [Honduras Chapter of] Business Council of Latin America” said Davis when reached at his office last Thursday. “I do not represent the government and do not talk to President [Roberto] Micheletti. My main contacts are Camilo Atala and Jorge Canahuati. I’m proud to represent businessmen who are committed to the rule of law,” said Davis. Atala, Canahuati, and other families that own the corporate interests represented by Davis and the CEAL are at the top of an economic pyramid in which 62 percent of the population lives in poverty, according to the World Bank.

For many Hondurans and Honduras watchers, the confirmation that Davis is working with powerful, old Honduran families like the Atalas and Canahuatis is telling: To them, it proves that Davis serves the powerful business interests that ran, repressed and ruined Honduras during the decades prior to the leftward turn of the Zelaya presidency.

“No coup just happens because some politicians and military men decide one day to simply take over” says White upon hearing who Davis is working for “Coups happen because very wealthy people want them and help to make them happen, people who are used to seeing the country as a money machine and suddenly see social legislation on behalf of the poor as a threat to their interests. The average wage of a worker in free trade zones is 77 cents per hour.”

“The tragedy” adds White, “is that the Canahuatis and the Atalas and the other big businesspeople don’t understand that it’s in their best interest to help to do things like help people make a decent living, reduce unemployment and raise the minimum wage.”

Davis disagrees. He believes that the tragedy of Honduras lies with Zelaya and that the president brought the coup upon himself. “It is an undisputed fact that Mr. Zelaya has violated the constitution. It’s my job to get the facts out.”

Asked if he had qualms about representing business people linked to a coup government denounced and unrecognized by the United Nations, the Organization of American States and many countries across the globe (including the United States), Davis responded, “There are facts about Mr. Zelaya that the world community may not be aware of. I’m proud to represent clients who support the decision of Secretary of State Clinton to back the mediation of President Arias in the conflict [between Zelaya and coup leaders]. But my biggest concern is safety and security of the Honduran people.”

Davis is not the only one concerned about the safety and security the Honduran people. The Committee of Families of Disappeared-Detainees in Honduras (COFADEH), a non-governmental human rights organization, released a report last week documenting over 1,100 human rights violations – arbitrary detentions, physical assaults, murders, and attacks on the media by the government and affiliated clandestine forces — that have occurred since the coup began on June 28.

COFADEH has also placed responsibility for the coup and the terror it has wrought directly on many of the founders of the Alliance for Progress and Development of Honduras (APROH), a predecessor of CEAL. Though now defunct, APROH brought together some of the same business and military interests that compose the political and economic hub of Honduran’s radical right, including the Canahuatis, Atalas and other CEAL families and businesses represented by Davis.

The CEAL predecessor’s track record on human rights has been less than stellar. In 1983, Honduras’ El Tiempo newspaper leaked an internal APROH document that recommended a military solution to problems in Honduras — and the rest of Central America — to Ronald Reagan’s Kissinger Commission, a bipartisan committee charged with formulating U.S. policy in the region. Perhaps more damning, APROH is considered by COFADEH and other human rights organizations as the eminence grise behind the death squad killings conducted by the infamous “Batallion 316″ in the 1980s.

Upon hearing Davis’ statements, Jose Luis Galdamez, a journalist for Radio Globo, laughs. “Mr. Davis is either ignorant of Honduras or is knowingly bloodying his name and that of the Clintons for lots of money,” he says. Galdamez recently went into hiding after members of the armed forces and paramilitary organizations harassed him and his colleagues. The military raided his radio station, beat workers there and threatened them for working at one of the few independent media outlets willing to “report about what’s actually happening in Honduras,” says Galdamez.

“I wish Mr. Davis would come here where I’m hiding so I can show him what it’s like to feel threatened not just by [de facto Honduran President] Micheletti and the military, but by the Canahautis and other groups of power he represents,” says Galdamez.

Galdamez, Gilda Rivera of the Center for Women’s Rights, and others interviewed for this story fear that, in hiring Clinton ally Davis, Canahuati, Atala and CEAL are using the liberal sheen of the Democratic party to divert attention from the dark history behind the current Honduran coup.

“The rich simply send you out to kill you and then kill with impunity. They never investigate into who killed who because the groups in power control the media, control the judiciary and now control the government again,” says Galdamez. “Mr. Davis is trying to legitimize people who use psychological intimidation and violence. He’s representing the interests of state terror.”

In a recent statement denouncing the coup, COFADEH described its backers as “the same group that in the 1980s was known as Alliance for Progress and Development of Honduras, which maintains its terror thru death squads.” The COFADEH report documents four cases of extra-judicial killings, including the July 5 shooting of 19 year-old Isis Obed Murillo, captured in a graphic video subsequently posted on YouTube.

Asked about human rights violations by the Micheletti government, Davis again places the onus for the current crisis on Zelaya. “I researched the facts on what occurred during the presidency of Mr. Zelaya. Mr. Zelaya led mob violence and you can see that on a YouTube video.”

When pressed about the grisly footage of the shooting of 19 year-old Isis Murillo, Davis responded, “Is there a video of the shooters? We need to know the facts.” He added, “If you can show me facts proving that my clients are involved in violations of civil liberties, I’ll resign.”

(This article appeared originally in the American Prospect, www.prospect.org)

_________________


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gran ... 55900.html

Greg Grandin
Professor of History, New York University

Fact Checking Lanny Davis on Honduras

Last Friday, I debated lawyer-turned-lobbyist Lanny Davis, now working for the business backers of the recent Honduran coup, on Democracy Now! It actually wasn't much of a debate -- in the way that word means an exchange of ideas -- as Davis was fast out of the box, preemptively trying to taint host Amy Goodman and me as "ideologues."

As Hillary Clinton's major fundraiser during last year's presidential primary, Davis is known for, among other things, leading the attack on Barack Obama for his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. "Why didn't he speak up earlier?" Davis asked in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, demanding to know why the candidate didn't distance himself from Wright's remarks. Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."

Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf.

Now Lanny Davis finds himself defending another de facto regime in Honduras that is engaging in "grave and systemic" political repression, suspending due process, harassing independent journalists, killing or disappearing at least ten people, and detaining hundreds as "constitutional," all the while touting himself as a (Honduran) constitutional expert.

The Honduran coup occurred on June 28, when soldiers, working on behalf of a small group of business and political elite who control the country, kidnapped democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya and sent him into exile. Since then, the military-backed de facto regime of Roberto Micheletti has tried to argue to the world that it was acting constitutionally, even though nearly every country in Latin America, along with the European Union, isn't buying it. Only in the U.S. is there a debate as to whether Micheletti government is legal or not -- largely thanks to the lobbying efforts of Lanny Davis.

Davis's argument is based on a disingenuous description of the legal and political maneuvers by Zelaya's opponents in the Supreme Court and Congress prior to the coup. He calls these power grabs constitutional. Never mind that several clear violations of Honduras' constitution were carried out on June 28th, including the detention of president Zelaya by the armed forces (violation of articles 293 and 272), his forced deportation to another country (violation of art. 102) and Congress' decision to destitute the president (this is not within Congress' constitutional attributions).

But the best response to this position -- in addition to pointing out that Davis' description of events is so selective as to be false (see below for details) -- is that throughout Latin America's long history of coups, those who executed them usually counted on legal and political backing. Pinochet in Chile, for example, had both.

In retrospect, I should have made this point. But Davis was running through so many lies -- they were too focused and polished to be simple mistakes or errors of interpretation -- it was hard to catch up. Through the program, host Amy Goodman demonstrated almost superhuman restraint, professionally refusing to respond to Davis's provocations. His very first lie accused her of an ideological rant, for simply reporting the truth, for saying that Zelaya accepted a proposal to settle the crisis brokered by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. This is demonstrably true -- Zelaya has repeatedly indicated a willingness to accept the compromise; Micheletti, on the other hand, is playing for time until November's regularly scheduled presidential elections -- yet Davis repeatedly insisted otherwise. My favorite part of the debate took place about a third into the show, when in response to me pointing out that he was carrying out ad hominem attacks, Davis said that I was the one engaging in ad hominem, since I used the word "elite" to describe supporters of the coup. "'Elite' is an ad hominem word," Davis said.

Business Week tells us that Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Americas, where "two-thirds of its 7.8 million citizens live below the poverty line, and unemployment is estimated at 28%. The country has one of Latin America's most unequal distributions of wealth: The poorest 10% of the population receives just 1.2% of the country's wealth, while the richest 10% collect 42%." What would Davis call those in this last, lucky category, if not "elites"? "Friends" perhaps, at least those he doesn't work for.

Below is a list of Davis's major lies, roughly in the order they appear in the transcript of the debate, followed by fact checks.

#1: Lanny Davis: "I do want to say that I appeared on Democracy Now! with the assurance, Amy, that you would be a neutral moderator, yet your opening is an ideological rant that distorts the facts. For example, you said that Mr. Zelaya accepted the Arias accords. In fact, Mr. Zelaya rejected President Arias's proposal, and the government of Mr. Micheletti has announced, and has, in fact, said it would continue to discuss."

Fact Check: This is not true. On July 19, Oscar Arias made the following statement: "The Zelaya delegation fully accepted my proposal, but not that of Don Roberto Micheletti." Zelaya reaffirmed his willingness to accept the Arias plan just a few days ago.

In the face of international condemnation, Micheletti began to backpedal, saying that he would submit the accords to Congress and the Supreme Court. But Micheletti's own backers admit that this is an attempt to buy time until the November elections: "It isn't the conversations that will provide an exit for the people, rather, the elections in November," said one prominent supporter recently. Micheletti himself, on August 1, said he would never allow Zelaya back as president, which is clearly part of the Arias plan.

#2: "By the way, the Congress, 95 percent of the Congress, even if you quarrel with plus or minus ten votes, voted to remove Mr. Zelaya."

Fact Check: Also not true. So far twenty-seven of the Honduran Congress' 128 members have publicly stated that they opposed the coup, that is, more than 20% of Congress members. The congressional vote Davis references was not transparent; some members who were suspected of being sympathetic to Zelaya weren't called to session; others were told that congress was adjourned. And even before the vote that Davis touts, Congress also voted to "accept" an obviously fake letter of resignation from Zelaya, dated June 25th -- that is, three days before the coup. This was before Davis took his current job, as I'm sure he would have caught that typo.

#3: Davis said that he doesn't "defend what was done [that is, the way in which Zelaya was sent into exile by the military]. He should have been put in jail, as the Supreme Court ordered him. He violated the law."

Fact Check: Not true. Zelaya has only been accused of violating the law. There has been no trial, much less a conviction.

#4: "The Congress overwhelmingly voted to remove him from office, because he violated Article 239 by his referendum."

Fact Check: False. The congressional decree that Lanny Davis here references did not mention article 239 of the Honduran constitution. The invocation of that article was retroactive, with the goal of justifying the military's illegal intervention into civilian politics.

#5: When I accused Davis of an ad hominen attack on me and Amy Goodman -- calling us ideologues -- he responded by saying "You're using ad hominem words, my friend, not me."

Fact Check: I checked the transcript and don't believe anything I said up to that point, or after for that matter, was an ad hominem attack on Davis.

#6: Davis followed by saying that my use of the word "elite" was an ad hominem attack: "'elite' is an ad hominem word," Davis said.

Fact Check: I'm not a grammarian, but I don't believe this is true. But if Davis wants to argue it is, how would he explain these recent articles from the AP and the Catholic News Service: "Honduran Coup Shows Business Elite Still in Charge" and "Honduran Bishop Says Wealthy Elite Were Behind the Ouster of President"? Or this 2008 State Department observation: "many observers argued that the considerable institutional control exercised" by the Honduran "elite created the potential for abuse of the country's institutions and democratic governance."

#7: "The Church, every civil institution in Honduras, so we're talking about the judiciary, the Congress, the Church, all of the parties but one, supported his ouster from government."

Fact Check: False. Important sectors of the Catholic Church, including the Bishop of Copán, have denounced the coup, as have many "civil institutions," including the country's three main union confederations and peasant organizations. Even as we debated, the Honduran military was entering national hospitals to put down a strike by health care workers . Last week, the police attacked the National Autonomous University, beating its rector with riot clubs.

#8: Again, regarding Article 239: "The Supreme Court's decision was a review of Mr. Zelaya's actions and whether it violated Article 239. That's a fact," Davis said. When I pointed out that the court's ruling did not in fact invoke article 239, Davis said I was "wrong."

Fact Check: I am correct. The Supreme Court's June 25th decision -- the one repeatedly touted to justify the coup -- makes no mention of Article 239.

#9: "I do agree that both parties are now moving to the center and are now at least willing to go back to the table with President Arias, who's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. There needs to be a negotiated solution."

Fact Check: This is PR spin. Davis knows well that Micheletti, as well as the business men who pay him, will not accept the return of Zelaya under any conditions unless forced to by the international community and protests within the country. He also knows that his job is to run out the clock until November's scheduled presidential elections, with the hope that the US will recognize the winner. Davis pretty much admits this in the interview.

#10: In response to my list of human-rights violations committed by the current government -- which an international human rights observation team described as "grave and systemic," and now includes the executions of at least ten Zelaya supporters, Davis responded by saying: "I don't defend, if any of those things are true, if any of them are true."

Fact Check: False; Davis is paid to defend the current regime and to paint it in the best light possible. Davis is a considerable talent, yet it is hard to both argue that a government that terrorizes its citizens is constitutional. How does Davis get around this dilemma? He deflects. An example of this occurred in the interview when in response to charges that the Micheletti government was engaging in political repression, he referenced a CNN report on a supposed political abduction that turned out to be a case of spousal abuse. Davis is well versed in PR techniques, and this one is straight out of the playbook used in the 1980s, when operatives linked to the Reagan White House worked hard to muddy the water, to cast just enough doubt the record of human rights violations in Central America. The point wasn't to disprove any given allegation that a US ally was engaged in political terror, but sow just enough confusion to keep human-rights activists on the defense -- and the public distracted.

#11: "If there have been media organizations shut down by the Micheletti government, which I do not believe is the case . . . "

Fact Check: Perhaps this is not a lie and just an unintentional error. In any case, Davis is wrong. The Miami Herald writes that "the newly installed Honduran government kept several news outlets closed." The respected Honduran Human rights group COFADEH documents various brief closures, blocked broadcasts and military occupations of television and radio outlets.

#12: Davis contested my claim that the U.S. State Department, prior to the coup, criticized the Honduran Supreme Court for corruption and for being controlled by political elites. This charge got Lanny particularly agitated: "I challenge that statement," he said.

Fact Check: The State Department's 2008 human rights report writes: "Although the constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence.... Low wages and lack of internal controls rendered judicial officials susceptible to bribery, and powerful special interests exercised influence in the outcomes of court proceedings. There are 12 appeals courts, 77 courts of first instance with general jurisdiction, and 330 justice of the peace courts with limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Justice names all lower court judges. The media and various civil society groups continued to express concern that the eight-to-seven split between the National and Liberal parties in the Supreme Court of Justice resulted in politicized rulings and contributed to corruption in public and private institutions."

#13: "So if you're attacking the Supreme Court, I assume you're attacking Mr. Zelaya, who put those justices on the Supreme Court."

Fact check: False. The president does not name Supreme Court justices. They are elected by the National Congress (see article 311 of the Honduran Constitution) which is controlled by the two major political parties. This is one of the reasons why the State Department, as mentioned above, considers the court corrupt.

#14: "Now I make my case that that's an ideological statement, not a factual statement," said Davis in response to my statement that Honduran politics is controlled by elites.

Fact Check: This is false. It is a non-ideological and widely accepted fact; see AP story referenced above.

#15: Honduras is "one of the great democracies in Latin America."

Fact Check: Again, false. See above referenced State Department Human Rights Report, as well as any recent United Nations Development Program reports, for a baleful description of the quality of Honduran democracy. According to the World Bank, "Overall, 50.7 percent of Hondurans has a consumption level below the full poverty line, and a total of 23.7 percent of the population has consumption levels below the extreme poverty line." It's difficult to build a functioning democracy on that level of misery.

#16: "I assume that the professor and I are both liberals."

Fact Check: I'll leave this for others to judge.

[John Schröder]

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... sy-attacks

Update 5:08 p.m. Tegucigalpa (7:08 p.m. ET): The coup regime held a "cadena nacional" (mandatory broadcast on all radio, TV and cable channels) this afternoon to deny having engaged in any chemical warfare and to say it would allow the international Red Cross and Dr. Andres Pavon, a human rights leader, into the embassy to check the health of those inside. A group of doctors, including Pavon, just emerged from the examinations and reported the following:

That the symptoms were definitely caused by some kind of "contaminant." Upon review of the photos of the unidentified device in the final photograph above, Pavon concludes that it is a humidifier and that the plastic bag contained some kind of liquid to put where water usually goes, and that it was the likely cause of the contamination of the embassy. It was not concluded whether the contaminant weapon was chemical or biological.

The doctors also confirmed, for Radio Globo, that UN officials had entered the Embassy with them to participate in the investigation.

The coup regime has just called a military curfew for most of the country's population from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. tonight.

5:32 p.m.: We've just confirmed independently from a source inside the building that UN officials have entered the Brazilian embassy.

[John Schröder]

http://quotha.net/node/391

Day 90, September 25, 2009 from Oscar (translation by Camille Collins Lovell)

As I write, I am speaking to a person who is inside of the Brazilian Embassy and reports that the building is being attacked with chemicals. They have the impression that the military is preparing to break in. This is the beginning of a new stage of the conflict which seems to get more violent with every passing day.

Yesterday was long, many things happened and I am still trying to understand fully the consequences of the day. Certain fears around the march of the "whites" in the end did not come to pass and the morning was uneventful.

I will describe the march of the whites. They came in buses to the Palmira neighborhood totaling approximately 5 thousand people. This time, as always, the army and the police provided security following the threat that a few members of the resistance would boycott the march. The usual mix: women and men from the upper class who parked their luxurious cars half a block from the concentration, veterans of war and reservists from the army, public employees, mostly city employees, poor men and women who believe wholeheartedly in bourgeois democracy. They convened in front of the United Nations clamoring for the world to respect their disrespectful postures. Dignity, yelled one elegant woman. The best Melista is a dead Melista [supporter of Mel Zelaya], shouted another who seemed to be an army official.

Later they moved on towards the Brazilian Embassy where the army blocked their access a block away and they turned toward the USAmerican Embassy. The slogans were the same ones used by the resistance but inverted: People join us; Whoever doesn't jump is a Melista; We will get that mule out of the embassy; etc. Their signs, contrary to previous marches, looked poor and faded. Handmade, without the usual slick graphics. Something that caught my attention was an Israeli flag that was waving among the hands of the marchers in thanks for the support provided for Honduran democracy. And they are right to thank Israel, since the weapons utilized in the recent protests, the screamer, the chemicals and the training were provided by the Israeli military.

Since nothing was happening in the rally in support of regime, I decided to move to the protest organized by the resistance at the National Autonomous University. When we arrived we saw 5 army trucks and their respective elements. Exhausted, reclining on their shields or sitting on their helmets in front of the fast food restaurants; with little desire to become involved in a confrontation with the protesters. Fifty meters up the road some 1000 young people, mostly from neighboring barrios, waited impatiently, prepared with stones, water and sticks for the battle that, much to their disappointment and the relief of their repressers, never happened.

At another level, yesterday was a day of meetings. The first one that circulated in the media was of the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Juan José Pineda, representing Cardinal Rodríguez, with President Zelaya. Later the four presidential candidates for the oligarchy met with Roberto Micheletti.

I had never been inside the press room at the presidential palace. It's not very comfortable and I thought it was interesting that on the television there was a program about sharks for the journalists' entertainment. After several hours of waiting the candidates arrived and read, badly, a statement that said the same as always: that the candidates support dialog to resolve the present crisis and that the elections should occur in the best conditions, that the elections should occur out of respect for popular will, that the elections are the way out of the present crisis, that the elections and more elections.

A couple of interesting details from the press conference: Felícito Ávila, who after talking about his openness to dialog, said that for the security of the Honduran people it was necessary to finish with the violent actions in clear reference to the resistance protests. His tome was threatening and gave the impression that the offer they are making to the resistance was simple: or accept the elections and stop talking about restitution stop the protests and marches or the repression will get stronger.

Carol Cabrera, a journalist known locally for her sharp tongue and little respect for president Zelaya and who seems now to be working for the national television channel's news program, made poor use of one of the 3 questions allowed the national press to ask if the candidates weren't worried about their own security when entering the Brazilian Embassy where they planned to later meet with Zelaya. Apparently Cabrera hasn't had a chance to walk near the zone and see that the army has total control of access to the avenues around the embassy.

Finally, in what was the last question by the international press, which seemed to have more intelligent questions as a result of not being controlled by the government, a journalist asked the candidates to clarify their positions. Answer me yes or no, do you accept the restitution of Zelaya to the presidency. The microphone jumped around from one candidate to another like a hot potato until it finally fell into the hands of Elvin Santos who would have liked to have thrown the thing out into the parking lot. Our commitment is to the elections said Santos and the journalists said "yes or no to restitution". "The elections" he repeated and the mocking laughter began to emanate from the press. Finally the candidates answered. Ávila said no, Martinez shouted that his commitment was to the constitution and Lobo, who seemed to be the only one with any lucidity among the candidates, said they would accept the San José accord and if that meant that Zelaya would be reinstated, they would accept it.

The candidates later went to the embassy to meet with Mel. The photos show the hypocritical embraces and cold handshakes. The most alarming one was between Mel and Elvin Santos, who just hours earlier had asked the president to leave the country for everybody's good, who days earlier accused Mel of conspiring against his life, today was hugging him, and his embrace reminded many of the kiss of Judas.

The candidates in general maintained the same posture as always, except for Santos who, according to Mel Zelaya's accusation later on Radio Globo, said inside that he would accept Mel's restitution as a solution to the crisis, while outside if front of the television cameras said he would not accept this. "What game are you playing?" said Mel, "be clear".

What game are we playing now? The news of the meeting of the Security Council and the threat of an intensification of sanctions that could even lead to a multilateral invasion has the governing caste scared. In this sense the meetings could be to soften the posture of the security council and buy time. On the one hand they speak of a willingness to dialog while in the urban neighborhoods the military repression continues against resistance members and the general population threatening even to get worse. At this moment from within the Brazilian Embassy people are reporting serious health problems from the chemicals being used on the President and his family and the rest of his companions.

While Santos recognizes, finally, that half of the Honduran people are with the resistance (I personally believe it's more, but recognizing that only a few weeks ago they were saying we were only 10% of the population, half is an improvement). However he does not recognize the resistance as an actor worthy of dialog and demands in a threatening tone that the elections be recognized as the only solution to the crisis and he refuses to talk about restitution. They discuss the San José accord, but it's as if they were talking about two different accords. They talk about dialog but really they are talking about punishment.

The great fear of the resistance now revolves around those closed door meetings. Would Mel Zelaya betray us? is a legitimate question coming from a people who have many times been betrayed by their leaders. That possibility is lessened in the degree that the regime continues to harass him.

¡NO PASARÁN!