Go back
US bullish foreign policy

US bullish foreign policy

Debates

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
aren't hillary and obama both lawyers? they should be perfectly capable of interpreting the constitutional basis (the HONDURAN constitutional basis) for legally deposing zelaya, or of delegating the interpretation.
It is in the vital interests of the U.S. and the South American nations that heavily armed troops with no arrest warrants and forged resignation letters spiriting heads of state away to airstrips in the middle of the night and all that kind of thing is a thing of the past. People were thinking - hoping - those days were behind us. But they're not. The U.S./U.N./O.A.S. stance on this is understandable. Most neighbouring countries concur.

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
Clock
23 Sep 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

they had a warrant. see below.

zelaya is back in honduras, holed up in the brazilian embassy. we'll see how it plays out.

i wonder how brazil would respond if the situation were reversed?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Detention_order


Detention order

Points of view vary regarding the chronology of detention orders. On Thursday June 25, 2009, according to the U.S. newspaper The New York Times (NYT)[83] and a document dated June 25, available digitally with a timestamp of July 2 in time zone UTC-5,[84][85] the Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi issued a secret order to detain and depose Zelaya. On June 26, according to the NYT[83] and a document dated June 26, available digitally with a timestamp of July 2 in time zone UTC+2,[86][87] the Honduran Supreme Court judge Tomas Arita Valle issued a sealed order, based on the Attorney General's petition, to detain José Manuel Zelaya Rosales for "acting against the government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power". According to the NYT, these orders were not made public at the time.[83]

According to Jari Dixon Herrera Hernández, a lawyer with the Attorney General's office, the arrest order was made on the day after the coup (June 29).[88]

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
23 Sep 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
they had a warrant. see below.

"According to the NYT, these orders were not made public at the time."
LOL. Dead right. When the maverick nature of the coup by the military sending the President into foreign exile - where's that in the constitution? - was revealed to the region and to the world, they suddenly came up with one. And what happened to the bogus resignation letter?

We thought we'd seen the back of this kind of thing.

g

Pepperland

Joined
30 May 07
Moves
12892
Clock
23 Sep 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Try quoting from something other than the Wall Street Journal.

sh76 hit a nail squarely on the head with his "Wait. Hold on a sec..." post.

You should have cast your net for an op-ed piece of some kind from the "left" where the the writer has perhaps got themselves in a tangle - saying one thing now, having spent years saying the opposite - etc. etc.

Th ...[text shortened]... able little piece from the Wall Street Journal.

And then you ask 'where's the debate?'
I don't see anything wrong with the wall st journal, and if the article is so bad than I would expect someone to prove how it is wrong (if it is).

but I appreciate your advice, maybe next time I'll try the new york times for a change.

g

Pepperland

Joined
30 May 07
Moves
12892
Clock
23 Sep 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
It is in the vital interests of the U.S. and the South American nations that heavily armed troops with no arrest warrants and forged resignation letters spiriting heads of state away to airstrips in the middle of the night and all that kind of thing is a thing of the past. People were thinking - hoping - those days were behind us. But they're not. The U.S./U.N./O.A.S. stance on this is understandable. Most neighbouring countries concur.
First of all, zelaya's removal wasn't against the laws or opposed by the institutions of the country.

Second of all, people were also hoping the days of caudillismo were behind us, but I guess its the opposite, they're coming back, you just have to look at the "bolivarian" countries to see how caudillismo is back in fashion.

And finally, why does the US have double-standards?
what about the countries where "democracy" is crippled by corruption (Iran, afghanistan, etc), or the dictatorships and other hostile countries? why is the US bullying honduras instead?

g

Pepperland

Joined
30 May 07
Moves
12892
Clock
23 Sep 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8271309.stm

and again President squid makes no effort to hide his stupidity.

I wish he was removed...

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.