Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
It wasn't a coup, the president was arrested and exiled because he broke the law. ...Zelaya broke the law, and was dealt with accordingly.
Are the facts are as you say? or was Zelaya acting
within the law in attempting to take an issue to people?
He maybe a "puppet" of Chavez, but isn't that for the
people to determine for themselves?
Who exactly is in violation of the Constitution? Is it within
the law for the military to force the President into exile?
No, it is not. Perhaps both actions were a violation of
the Constitution, but one was democracy, one was not.
You said "...the president was arrested and exiled because
he broke the law..." It would actually be more correct to say
that the military broke the law (forcing the president into
exile) because they feared the outcome if people would
be given a voice.
"Zelaya broke the law, and was dealt with accordingly."
Maybe according to "the law" of the jungle, but not according
to the Law of the Land as defined by the Constitution. If you
favor the law of the jungle, then I guess your okay want the
revolution that will surely follow.
Regarding the definition of coup d'etat, here are the first
two that pulled-up in a quick search:
A) "a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force"
or
B) "the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of usurpers."
Both would describe the action in Honduras.
This was a sudden change by force and it could very
well be illegal. If our President was removed from
office by the military it certainly would be illegal.
I think there is good reason to think this action
in Honduras was just a illegal. If not, then why
did they create a fake resignation letter?
[edit on 29-6-2009 by wasaka]



