Comments god dammit al
Submitted August 18, 2009 - 11:23 am by please (not verified)
we need you back here. Micheletti's admission of guilt
Submitted August 18, 2009 - 12:01 pm by Ryan Vaquero (not verified)
I was hoping that yesterday's article in Bloomberg would show up
here! This is the best news I've heard in a while, actually. The
reasons I think this is important:
1) Micheletti wouldn't have come out and said this unless he had to ... it publicly demonstrates that he's feeling pressure.
2) This demonstrates the lack of cohesion and truthfulness coming
from the coup regime. It was waaay back on July 3 when the Miami Herald
ran the interview with Honduran Army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo
Inestroza, who made some amazing assertions. The statement he made
which is relevant to this comment was: ''We know there was a crime
there. In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way
that he was taken out, there is a crime."
Although not exactly relevant to this comment, he also made the
unbelievable statement that because the Honduran Army has historically
been involved in suppressing leftist political tendencies, the military
would never accept a leftist government, democratically-elected or not:
fought the subversive movements here and we were the only country that
did not have a fratricidal war like the others. It would
be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a
leftist government. That's impossible."
Apparently, the concept that the Armed Forces serve whatever
democratic government is elected by the people doesn't fly with Col.
Inestroza and he's brazen enough to rant this to the Miami Herald.
3) Two weeks later, the president of the Honduran Supreme Court also
made it clear that the removal of President Zelaya was illegal in an
interview with La Tribuna: "The Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's capture
and authorized the raid on his house so he could be captured," Rivera
said. "The expulsion was not in the capture order, and in that sense,
we have to analyze if (his expulsion) was the best thing given the
necessities of the moment."
4) Unfortunately for Roberto Micheletti, it was almost 2 weeks after
both the military -and- the Supreme Court admitted that Zelaya's
removal from the country was illegal when Micheletti argued otherwise
in his op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal:
"The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to
arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and
elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a
military coup is demonstrably false.
Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the
evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the
situation could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary
to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr.
Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led
So, who exactly is going to be "punished" for the "entirely
civilian" removal, Micheletti? Maybe the person who was still defending
it, long after the entire world and even members of the coup conspiracy
itself were admitting that it was illegal?
5) Not really being a scholar on Honduran constitutional law, I have
to believe that these admissions are significant. If Zelaya should have
been arrested and gone on trial, then a whole bunch of people have been
wrong about the "constitutionality" and pristine "law & order" of
the coup. Now that the Army, the Supreme Court and the Executive of
Honduras has publicly admitted that a crime (perhaps treason?) was
committed during the kidnapping of democratically-elected President
Zelaya, perhaps the only people in the entire world still defending the
coup as perfectly legal is Connie Mack and Mary O'Grady.
6) Finally, Micheletti's threat that SOMEONE is going to be
"punished" for committing this crime means that the coup regime gets to
fight it out amongst themselves who exactly will be "punished". And,
this should only be the beginning of who gets "punished" ... hopefully,
other "crimes" that occurred during this coup period will be admitted
to, and who will be punished for the order to fire live rounds into the
peaceful crowd at the airport? Who will be punished for torturing and
dumping the body of a young man at the Honduras-Nicaragua border? Who
will be punished for the drive-by shooting at Via Campesina? And so on.
The coup plotters, who are supposed to be convincing the world that
constitutional order is firmly in place in Honduras, will instead be
engaged in a paranoia-driven blame game. Who wants to be the one to
take the fall for this? Mapping the fall of the coup
Submitted August 18, 2009 - 3:51 pm by Roy Martin
You've done a great job explaining (and predicting) how all this
would play out, though you were wrong about Obama's handling of the
situation early on. Alternatively, you may have hit the nail on the
head way back when you suggested it would be a mistake for Barack to
appoint Hillary as SoS. It may be that she essentially tied his hands,
though I must say I expected him to be able to pressure her to stay in
I really miss your political analysis on issues other than Honduras
as the health care debate plays out. I'd love your take on whether
Obama was floating a trial baloon on dropping the public option for
fear he can't get it through the Senate. I'd also like to know your
opinion as to whether we're best off getting whatever reform we can get
and trying to improve it incrementally over time or simply saying no to
change that doesn't include a real public option and letting the system
continue to implode.
I'd sure like to see Obama do a much better job of selling health
care reform, and would love your take on that too. I recall the way
Reagan would go on the air and change the dynamic around political
issues. Health care reform would seem ripe for that, with the insurance
and pharmaceutical companies making great targets for popular outrage
(rather than the Administration itself) if only the President could
bring himself to move away from his instinct for moderation.
Would also like your take on the current climate, in which
protestors are bringing guns to political events. Hard to imagine the
Bush Administration permitting such things. I seem to recall protestors
having been carted off to jail for far less than that. Tolerating such
behavior would seem to welcome more of it and that's scary in a nation
with a long history of political violence from the extreme right.
Wouldn't mind being called out for chicken littling if I'm off base.
Would be well worth it to receive the education and understanding that
was so helpful to all of us during the primaries and the election.