Via the AP: Deposed Honduran prez accused of drug ties
The regime that ousted Manuel Zelaya in Honduras claimed Tuesday that the deposed president allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into the Central American country on its way to the United States.
I certainly have no idea whether the allegations are true or not, but I would note that this is some pretty suspicious timing for such allegations and smacks of an ex post facto attempt to cover the rear ends of those who ousted Zelaya. One would think, for example, that if evidence of such actions existed last week, that it would have been useful to bring it up as a means of heading off the constitutional crisis that came to full bloom on Sunday. Or, at a minimum, it would have come up during his ouster.
Beyond that, since Zelaya has threatened to return to Honduras this coming Thursday and the government has threatened to arrest him if he does, it is helpful to now have something for which to arrest him. Indeed, if that is the way that this is shaping up, then it actually gives further weight to the argument that the Honduran officials who ousted Zelaya had no actual legal basis for doing so in the first place, and so feel the need to find one so that they have something to arrest him for upon his return to Honduran soil.
Certainly, the Honduran government has a PR problem on their hands, what with the OAS and UN breathing down their necks.
The BBC notes the following;
Roberto Micheletti, the Speaker of Congress who was sworn in as interim president, said Mr Zelaya would face charges of violating the constitution, and having links with organised crime and drug-traffickers.Sphere: Related Content
July 1st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Prof. Taylor, I’ve read your articles with great interest, as well as those of Rev. Sensing at Sense of Events. He points out a few oddiities about the Hondoran Constitution:
a. It forbids enciting, encouraging or supporting a second term. So any attempt to extend the Presidential term would have to be indirect and secretive.
b. Violations of the secession principles requirees immediate cessation of office.
c. The military is charged with maintaining the alernation in the presidency.
So, I’m not convinced that the coup was unauthorized by Honderan law. And while I don’t think that democracy is merely about elections — it has rule of law elements including adherence to the Constitution, this is not a particularly liberal constitution.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
PD:
You are correct on a. In regards to b., it is my understanding that one can have one’s citizenship revoked for advocating re-election and there is a provision for a 10 year ban on holding office for advocating the installation of a former president into office (I blogged both here). I do not see anything about an “immediate cessation of office.” If it did, btw, that would have been easy and wouldn’t have required predawn arrest and exile.
Even if what you say is correct, where’s the due process? I continue to find it difficult to understand why so many people think that even if one can construct a rationale for the ousting of Zelaya that they have no problem with the summary fashion in which it was performed. It is my experience studying these types of events that it is rather unlikely (to put it mildly) that a legal, defensible action requires this type of maneuver (showing up at the presidential mansion before sunrise and then forcibly exiling the elected president). Does that really sound to you like the proper functioning of the law? Common criminals caught red-handed stealing get more of a process than that.
I do not think that your characterization of c. is correct, and I would appreciate a citation to the constitution as it would be helpful to see for myself.
In regards to the military, it is no unusual for militaries to be charged with protecting the constitution (our own soldiers take oaths to that effect). But let’s consider what that means–and it shouldn’t mean the use of military force against and elected official.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Take this hypothetical: Imagine Obama announced that he was going to hold a referendum on legalizing a third term for himself. Imagine that even his attorney general Eric Holder advised him that it was illegal. Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that holding the referendum was unconstitutional. In spite of that, let’s imagine that Obama coerced the FEC to hold the referendum any way. Then we found out that the referendum was being financed by Hugo Chavez. What should the Joint Chiefs do? That is exactly what has occurred in Honduras to a tee. The Honduras Attorney General and their Supreme Court did exactly that. Their Generals did what they had to.
LET US SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS.
WE DO NOT WANT CHAVEZ IN OUR COUTRY.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 am
As for c, here it is:
ARTICULO 272.- Las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras, son una Institución Nacional de carácter permanente, esencialmente profesional, apolítica, obediente y no deliberante.
Se constituyen para defender la integridad territorial y la soberanía de la República, mantener la paz, el orden público y el imperio de la Constitución, los principios de libre sufragio y la alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la República.
(…)
Another relevant articlez in the current mess are these:
ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
So, calling for an Assembly to write a new constitution is unconstitutional.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 am
really i certainly have no idea wheather the allegation are tru or not!!!!!!!!!!!! may be its preety timing for allegation
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
So, calling for an Assembly to write a new constitution is unconstitutional
I don’t disagree. But that has nothing to do with whether arrest, exile and removal was constitutional.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Article 239 appears to state that a President who seeks to violate or propose reform of the term limit ban will immediately cease in their functions. I read that as immediately ceasing the office, but the language could suggest immediately stop the problematic conduct.
Article 272 states that the armed forces are established to “keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic.”
BTW/ I don’t speak/read Spanish and I don’t really take sides here. It just seems that from an American p.o.v., the Honduran Constitution has a pretty alien set of expectations.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
For what it is worth, I do read and speak Spanish and my area of academic expertise includes such things as democratic institutions in Latin America and have written a book which includes the topic of constitutional development in Colombia. I am also quite aware of the deleterious effects of extra-legal power plays in Latin American political history–and that influences my view of what is going on in Honduras. These types of situations rarely are as clean and easy as some want to make them out to be.
I discussed article 239 here. There is no provision in that article for the immediate ouster of the president.
And again: the issue to me isn’t whether Zelaya was behaving problematically if no ilelgally–I agree that he was. The issue for me is about the coup itself-what’s it justification was and what its long-term effects will be.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:38 am
NO,THE TIMING IS NOT SUSPICIOUS,ITS JUST RIGHT,WHAT DO YOU KNOW?
July 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
There was NO coup!
Hondurans prevented a coup. They quite rightly ousted a man who was unlawfully preparing for a power grab which would have resulted in disaster for Hondurans. The same disaster that is destroying Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and the rest of the countries ruled by Marxist thugs controlled by Castro/Chavez.
As Zelaya behaved illegally, the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya and to elevate the person next in line under the Honduras Constitution. This is Constitutional Democracy in action combating illegal behavior by a sitting president.
Wiser than other Latin Americans, Hondurans have a constitution that protects them by “democratic” (Marxist) power grabs (controlled by Castro/Chave), based on lies, manipulation, intimidation and fraud. The pertinent article reads as follows:
“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
Zelaya wanted to FORCE Hondurans to the reform of this law again and again, publicly and vociferously. This automatically triggers the above clause which requires his immediate removal. Immediate, as in no trial, and no impeachment. If there were a trial, Chavez would manipulate it and force Hondurans to submit to him.
Many of us, coming from countries enslaved by Zelaya-like Marxist thugs working for Castro and Chavez, wish we could have done what Hondurans are doing. We wish them the best. Hondurans deserve to be free from Castro/Chavez/Zelaya.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
As one of Castro/Chavez minions, of course Zelaya is involved in drug trafficking!
Honduras Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez told CNN en Espanol that Zelaya was implicated in drug trafficking from Venezuela into the U.S.
“Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds…and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking,” he said. “We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it. The DEA [U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration] has it,” he added.
Even without the declaration of Ortez, anyone familiar with the situation knew Zelaya was involved with drug trafficking. Why? Because Castro and Chavez have been involved in drug trafficking for years as a means to make money and destroy the U.S. They are also allied with Islamic terrorists for the same purpose – destroy the U.S.
Ortega, Morales, Correa and all the Marxist thugs controlled by Castro and Chavez contribute to drug trafficking and are also working with Islamic terrorists. They authorize drug cartels’ planes to land at night in the various airports and plane fields. Correa even houses FARC terrorists!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Antonio,
All of this begs a very simple question: why didn’t the Honduran government simply arrest and charge Zelaya? Why resort to an extra-legal ouster?