Comments:Honduras interim government rejects orders to reinstate deposed president

Not a coup
It was not a coup, I liken this to if a US president was impeached, Obama is afraid this will happen to him if he violates the Constitution. I have lost all faith in him, and I really wanted to like him. Nobody is above the law, it is sad that the international community won't recognize this.--75.195.248.162 (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The constitution is the foundational instrument of government in Honduras, as in all other countries that are not under despotic rule. A coup is by definition an overthrow of the government, and this corresponds to an overthrow of the constitution. The highest authorities on the Honduran constitution have ruled that far from being breached by this measure, the constitution was upheld by preventing a coup by the president wherein he ignores constitutional authority and installs himself as the de-facto source of government authority. In other words: far from being a coup, this was actually the thwarting of a coup. Having apprised myself of the situation, I think that equitably, as well as legally, Zelaya is guilty of treason and should be seized and tried for such should he return to Honduras. The "international community" (a title that certain entities like to take upon themselves even though they're essentially unrepresentative) is on the wrong side of the issue, as usual. 209.30.170.213 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this signals the death of the Rule of Law. While I would expect like-minded dictators to throw their support behind someone else seeking a power-grab, and while I was appalled by the Obama administration following suit, I was simply stunned that the entire membership of the OAS and nearly the entire world are condemning Honduras for enforcing the law. I agree with the previous comments - this was no military coup - this was the enforcement of existing laws. I am deeply concerned over Obama's stance. On the one hand it was improper to meddle in the affairs of another country when it came to standing with citizens protesting against tyranny, but not improper to meddle when supporting a would-be-tyrant. This is outrageous and I believe I speak for those of us who aren't part of the world-gone-mad when I wish the best for Honduras and that justice is fulfilled here.

(On a side-note, I wonder if ACORN International is active in Honduras...)--Simply Complicated (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree
I completely agree with the above comments. It's difficult to find a source not citing this as a coup and there should be alot more. I also agree that the united nations is unrepresentative, representatives should be elected by their population. This would remove power from the states and give more power to the population.

--Z E U S (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but it wouldn't solve the main problem with the UN. Repressive governments get votes in the United Nations...it would be so easy to just say...if your country is violating the UN Charter then you nullify your voting privileges until you correct yourselves. That's easy, it's common sense. Without that kind of protection, the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. -- Simply Complicated (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed
It should be perfectly acceptable for a nations military to protect its own country from its own president. While they probably didnt need to use the military, they were justified in doing so regardless of law. I get that most countries are condemning this out of fear it happens to them as well as the unknown legality of such a move. But, the former president wanted to change the constitution for his own gain, something unethical and unuacceptable to not just the people of Honduras, but the world. I fear that if the actions of the world leaders succeed and the president is restored. Than democracy and freedom itself are fundamentally threatened by those who are sworn in by the people. Even the US military's oath affirms the soldier to protect the united states from threats both foreign and domestic. I took that oath with the intent to follow it to the letter. If the same thing were to happen here, and the military was the option used to get rid of a tyrant. I would have done so without question. The only thing Honduras did wrong was to not take him to court first and not having a clear statement of law in their government saying if this coup was legal or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason the military was used and he was not taken to court is because under the Honduran constitution, for a former or acting president or vice-president to advocate changing the constitution to allow more terms makes you ineligible to hold any office of public trust for 10 years, effective at the moment of the advocating. He effectively removed himself from office and refused to step down. He was legally not the president and had to be forcibly disposed. Congress selected a temporary replacement pending new elections. Congress isn't the military. I know that constitutional provision might seem drastic, but given the history of Latin American dictatorships it's arguably called for. -- Simply Complicated (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)