Surprising view from Fontova, yeah right!!

Waht he doesnt understand is that Obama's admin, and most other nations and orgs too, respect the concept of democracy more than their perisonal likings of a politician..... there is grnadness there that the simpleminded fail to see.....

so it totally acceptable for you to read a bogus resignation letter to congress....

Zelaya should finish his term in office,...punto....

allah mio,hasta donde llega tu rabia ciega a los movimientos de izquierda ?????

BUT IS'NT THIS SIMILAR TO THE SAME THING LEONEL DID IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC?

Chavez invade Honduras???

The Venezuelan Navy is probably some big "Yolas" and the Venezuelan military would have trouble getting off their fat arses ...

Bill, can you be a little more clear? Try what in the USA?

The USA you know the place you freeload and whine and complain about .. ..I hope we wont be seeing you coming back wearing the orange PJs and the shiny bracelets.. . your parents are so ashamed of you now can you imagine then

Nobel Laureate Arias May Push for Early Vote in Honduras
By Jens Erik Gould and Bill Faries
July 9 (Bloomberg) -- Oscar Arias, the Costa Rican president who won the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for brokering an end to Cold War-era conflict in Central America, is now charged with resolving a political crisis in Honduras.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped arrange for Arias to host a meeting in San Jose today between Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who was deposed and deported in a June 28 coup, and de facto President Roberto Micheletti. Two people have been killed in clashes between Zelaya’s supporters and the armed forces in Honduras, where a Venezuelan plane carrying Zelaya was prevented from landing on July 5.

The Costa Rican wants to prevent more regional governments from being overthrown, he said last week. He may push for Zelaya to be allowed to serve out his term, which ends in January, said Jose Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch Americas in Washington. An alternative is to advance November’s elections, in which neither Zelaya or Micheletti is running for office, said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas in New York.

“Arias is someone who will offer the kind of leadership and credibility to the negotiations that is in everybody’s best interest,” said Vivanco, who said he has known the Nobel laureate for more than 20 years. “He is clearly on the side of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. But he also understands politicians.”

The selection of the 68-year-old Arias as mediator robs Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who provided Zelaya’s government with subsidized oil, of the chance to take a lead role, said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy group.

‘Path For Militaries’

Chavez, who has accused the U.S. military of supporting the coup, may not want the Costa Rican president heading negotiations because Arias is a U.S. ally and free-trade champion who has publicly chided leaders -- including Chavez -- for denying democratic freedoms, said Sergio Moya, a professor of political science at the University of Costa Rica.

In a July 2 news conference, Arias said other fragile democracies might be brought down by armed forces should Zelaya’s ouster be allowed to stand.

“If this coup d’etat receives impunity, we would be opening a path for militaries in Latin America and other parts of the world to distort democracy,” he said.

Arias declined to be interviewed for this story, said Pablo Gueren, an adviser to the president.

Peace Talks

Born in Heredia, Costa Rica, Arias joined the country’s cabinet as minister of planning and economic policy after studying law and economics at the University of Costa Rica and earning a doctorate in political science from the University of Essex in England.

He served as president from 1986 to 1990 and was elected again in 2006. In 2007, he campaigned for the Central American Free-Trade Agreement with the U.S., saying it would spur growth and be beneficial to the poor. Voters in Costa Rica, whose economy was $30 billion in 2008, approved the pact.

During his first term, Central America was plagued by civil wars fueled by arms and funding from the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The fighting, which ravaged Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, took the lives of more than 100,000 people, according to Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive in Washington.

Arias orchestrated peace talks with the heads of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in 1986 and 1987 and united them behind an accord that Egil Aarvik, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, called “a signpost in the work for peace the whole world over” based on democratic ideals.

Impounded Ballots

In his Nobel lecture, Arias called Latin America a region “deeply marked with pain” and one “where totalitarian regimes still exist which put the whole of humanity to shame.”

A recipient of the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award and Martin Luther King Jr. Peace Award, Arias is on the board of directors for the International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development, the International Crisis Group and Transparency International.

Zelaya, 56, sparked a power struggle in Honduras when he tried to hold a national poll to gauge support for his proposal to makes changes to the constitution, which the Supreme Court ruled would be illegal. He ignored a court order overturning his firing of the head of the military for refusing to help administer the poll, and later led a group of civilians onto a military base to seize ballots that had been impounded.

‘A Real Bulldog’

Micheletti, head of the Honduran Congress before being sworn in as interim president, has pledged to arrest Zelaya if he returns, saying he faces at least 18 charges handed down by the Supreme Court.

The Organization of American States voted 33-0 on July 5 to suspend Honduras from the regional group.

Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Samuel Santos urged Arias not to give in to “delay tactics,” saying unrest in the region could escalate.

“What’s important is that Arias doesn’t allow that any validity is given that military coup,” Santos said in an interview. “The risk I see is that the negotiations consume the rest of Zelaya’s term.”

The Costa Rican president’s acting as mediator offers the best chance for a resolution, according to Hakim of the Inter- American Dialogue.

“Arias is a real bulldog,” Hakim said. “When he wants something there’s no stopping him.”

Last Sunday, Honduras removed its would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya, who flouted court rulings by using intimidation to try to get Hondurans to change their constitution to allow him to extend his tenure in office. The country’s Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya, which the military enforced by removing Zelaya. The country’s legislature then voted almost unanimously to replace him with its legislative speaker, in accord with the country’s constitution.

Now, Obama, who knows nothing about Honduran law, is ignorantly claiming that Zelaya’s removal was “illegal,” and demanding that Zelaya be reinstated as president. His demand is joined in by the Organization of American States, many of whose leaders, like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, have either violated their own countries’ constitutions, or likewise seek to eliminate term limits contained in their own countries’ constitutions. (”A senior Obama administration official said the United States would probably move to suspend economic development and military assistance” to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere).

Obama is quite wrong to claim that the removal of Zelaya was “illegal.” The Honduran president forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution, as even left-leaning commentators have now admitted. The Honduran military’s role in enforcing the court order does not make it a “coup” anymore than federal troops’ role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover.

(Zelaya was a corrupt ruler who so mismanaged his country’s finances so badly that it recently failed to pay many of its bills. His violations of his country’s constitution were criticized by human rights groups and the Catholic Church as well as the legislature and judiciary).

What happened in Honduras was not ”illegal,” much less a “coup,” agrees the Honduran lawyer and former Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez in his July 2 column in the Christian Science Monitor. He notes that under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, the President automatically lost his right to remain in office by seeking to extend his term in office: “According to Article 239: ‘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 [emphasis added], 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.’ Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says ‘immediately’ – as in ‘instant,’ as in ‘no trial required,’ as in ‘no impeachment needed.’ Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo. The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.”

If Richard Nixon had been impeached and convicted for Watergate, and then refused to leave office, until being forced out by the military, would that have been a “military coup”? Of course not. But Obama and many in the press are taking essentially that position in demanding the reinstatement of Honduras’s would-be dictator.

The fact that the military carried out the Honduran Supreme Court’s orders in removing a would-be dictator, after he flouted the court’s rulings, does not make it a “military coup.” When court orders are defied by powerful government officials, troops are sometimes called out to enforce them, as happened in the U.S. in 1957 when federal troops forced Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus to stop blocking the court-ordered integration of Little Rock’s public schools. Indeed, Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution gives the military the power to remove a president even without a court order, if he seeks to violate the term limits prescribed in the Honduran Constitution. Even a legal commentator, Litho, at the leading liberal blog Daily Kos, which is run by a leftist Latin American immigrant, admits that the military’s action was “legal” in a “technical sense” under the Honduran Constitution.


Last Sunday, Honduras removed its would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya, who flouted court rulings by using intimidation to try to get Hondurans to change their constitution to allow him to extend his tenure in office. The country’s Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya, which the military enforced by removing Zelaya. The country’s legislature then voted almost unanimously to replace him with its legislative speaker, in accord with the country’s constitution.

Now, Obama, who knows nothing about Honduran law, is ignorantly claiming that Zelaya’s removal was “illegal,” and demanding that Zelaya be reinstated as president. His demand is joined in by the Organization of American States, many of whose leaders, like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, have either violated their own countries’ constitutions, or likewise seek to eliminate term limits contained in their own countries’ constitutions. (”A senior Obama administration official said the United States would probably move to suspend economic development and military assistance” to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere).

Obama is quite wrong to claim that the removal of Zelaya was “illegal.” The Honduran president forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution, as even left-leaning commentators have now admitted. The Honduran military’s role in enforcing the court order does not make it a “coup” anymore than federal troops’ role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover.

(Zelaya was a corrupt ruler who so mismanaged his country’s finances so badly that it recently failed to pay many of its bills. His violations of his country’s constitution were criticized by human rights groups and the Catholic Church as well as the legislature and judiciary).

What happened in Honduras was not ”illegal,” much less a “coup,” agrees the Honduran lawyer and former Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez in his July 2 column in the Christian Science Monitor. He notes that under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, the President automatically lost his right to remain in office by seeking to extend his term in office: “According to Article 239: ‘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 [emphasis added], 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.’ Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says ‘immediately’ – as in ‘instant,’ as in ‘no trial required,’ as in ‘no impeachment needed.’ Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo. The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.”
continued

Page 2
Iif Richard Nixon had been impeached and convicted for Watergate, and then refused to leave office, until being forced out by the military, would that have been a “military coup”? Of course not. But Obama and many in the press are taking essentially that position in demanding the reinstatement of Honduras’s would-be dictator.

The fact that the military carried out the Honduran Supreme Court’s orders in removing a would-be dictator, after he flouted the court’s rulings, does not make it a “military coup.” When court orders are defied by powerful government officials, troops are sometimes called out to enforce them, as happened in the U.S. in 1957 when federal troops forced Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus to stop blocking the court-ordered integration of Little Rock’s public schools. Indeed, Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution gives the military the power to remove a president even without a court order, if he seeks to violate the term limits prescribed in the Honduran Constitution. Even a legal commentator, Litho, at the leading liberal blog Daily Kos, which is run by a leftist Latin American immigrant, admits that the military’s action was “legal” in a “technical sense” under the Honduran Constitution.

While talks were convened to aim at reconciliation, Honduran lawmakers were making the return of ousted President Manuel Zelaya difficult.
By JIM WYSS
jwyss@MiamiHerald.com

TEGUCIGALPA -- While ousted President Manuel Zelaya carries out a raucous public battle to return and finish the last six months of his term, the Honduran attorney general is quietly collecting evidence that might put Zelaya behind bars -- or keep him at bay -- for years.

Zelaya and interim President Roberto Micheletti traveled to Costa Rica on Thursday to begin negotiating a way out of the political crisis in which both claim the presidency. But congress and other branches of government have suggested that some things are not on the table -- namely, dropping charges so Zelaya can return.

Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho, who was appointed under the Zelaya administration, said his office would vehemently resist any pressure for leniency.

''Only congress can extend amnesty,'' he said. ``But we will take every legal action necessary so that no accusations that have been made, or will be made, against a public official are left in impunity.''

Zelaya is facing four charges: abuse of power, treason, usurping his duties and attempts against the form of government. Only treason and attempts against the form of government might be considered ''political'' charges, legal experts said.

Any legal woes for Zelaya stem from a single issue: his aggressive pursuit of a national referendum that he hoped would allow him to rewrite the constitution.

As congress and the courts legally blocked him each step of the way, Zelaya switched tactics, ignored rulings and fired those who got in the way. It came to a crisis point on June 25 when he rallied his supporters to break into a government building and seize the impounded referendum material, which was under guard. That was the last straw.

On June 26, the Supreme Court ordered his arrest, according to documents provided by the attorney general's office. On the morning of June 28 -- the day the referendum was to take place -- masked soldiers escorted Zelaya at gunpoint onto an airplane in his pajamas and flew him to Costa Rica.

In addition, Zelaya's chief of staff, Enrique Flores Lanza, is accused of abuse of power and misuse of public funds for withdrawing about $2.2 million in cash from the Central Bank on June 24.

Urtecho said there may be more charges in the pipeline. ''We have received reports about government contracts that violated the law,'' he said. ``But all the documentation we needed has been in the hands of the government officials who vacated their offices on June 28.''

Since Zelaya's departure, many of his ministers have fled and the entire Cabinet has been replaced.

PROCESS OBSCURE?

Zelaya's supporters see the charges as a naked ploy to make the negotiations moot.

''The courts and the attorney general work for Micheletti and there is a complete lack of transparency in the legal system,'' Eduardo Enrique Reina, Zelaya's private secretary and minister of communication, said in a phone call. ``The legal mechanism they used to get rid of Zelaya was a machine gun.''

Samuel Zelaya, a protest organizer not related to the president, said some of the legal documents the government has trotted out are suspicious. While the president's arrest warrant was dated June 26, no one knew about it. In fact, Zelaya had a press conference with diplomats present on June 27.

''If anyone had known about that order they would not have been there,'' he said. The document only came to light after Zelaya was out of the country.

While Micheletti maintains that Zelaya's removal was legal and in keeping with the constitution, Zelaya has said he was the victim of a coup.

That same debate took place Friday in Washington. Republicans on the U.S. House Foreign Affairs subcommittee rejected assertions that Zelaya's ouster was illegal, arguing that the military was acting on orders to take Zelaya into custody.

DEMOCRACY AT WORK?

''The world is slowly waking to the reality that what at first looked like a military usurpation of democracy was actually the culmination of the democratic process,'' said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.

But Democrats noted that even a high-ranking Honduran military official had acknowledged the military operation was likely illegal.

''The military should not have deposed President Manuel Zelaya and whisked him out of the country,'' said committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. ``We can all discuss the events leading up to the removal of President Zelaya -- and I intend to do just that. But in the end, our hemisphere cannot tolerate what is essentially a military coup.''

The Organization of American States and the United Nations have also condemned the ouster and called for Zelaya's return.

U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto suggested Friday that a breakthrough in the crisis might be in the works. But few others have expressed such optimism.

While the pressure may be aimed at influencing talks, it's had little impact on local lawmakers.

Honduran congressional leaders said offering amnesty was unlikely.

''I can understand an amnesty on political issues,'' said Toribio Aguilera, an influential congressman with the PINU party, which came out against Zelaya's ouster. ``But for misuse of funds? Stealing? Corruption? I don't know how we could ever do that.''

Hugo needs a slap