Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTotalitarian Rightists Put Orwellian Spin on Honduras Coup
To hear Rush Limbaugh and the tribunes of the totalitarian right tell it, everything is going swimmingly in Honduras.
Yes, the military invaded the home of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya with guns blazing, kidnapped the country's elected leader and forced him to leave the country.
Yes, the military then installed an unelected president and a new "interim" cabinet.
But, says Limbaugh, "It really wasn't a coup. It was the constitution being upheld. It was not a government being overthrown. It was a government being upheld, a government being sustained and getting rid of somebody who wanted to turn into an Ortega, who wanted to turn into a Chavez, who wanted to become a Castro, and these are the people our president of the United States is siding with."
Reading from the same script, Fox's Sean Hannity declared that it was "mind-numbing" that the Obama administration would side with the world community to condemn the removal of Zelaya by the military and its political allies. While Hannity undoubtedly knows a good deal about what it takes to numb a mind, this spin is surreal even by the standards of the totalitarian right that has so besmirched the name of traditional, antiinterventionist conservatism.
Putting aside concerns that Limbaugh, Hannity and their lesser compatriots appear to be suffering from severe Obama Derangement Syndrome – a condition characterized by bouts of uncontrollable rage and deep depression separated by rambling ruminations on the need to prevent regulation of pharmaceutical products -- the argument that there was no coup in Honduras was pretty much put Wednesday. The country's new rulers established a sweeping nighttime curfew, during which the following sections of the Honduran Constitution are specifically suspended:
ARTICLE 69.- Personal liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through modification of the laws.ARTICLE 71.- No person can be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four hours, without appearing before a competent authority for trial.
ARTICLE 78.- The freedoms to assemble and meet are guaranteed, as long as they are not contrary to public order and good custom.
ARTICLE 81.- Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter and remain in the national territory.
Honduran politicians and jurists who have aligned with the country's powerful military – and been well rewarded for doing so -- make a point that not all basic freedoms have been suspended all the time.
Fair enough. But there are still some Americans who think that the suspensions of any basic freedoms any of the time is problematic.
In fact, the way that Limbaugh, Hannity and their echo chamber are talking, you'd think that Zelaya was the one assaulting liberty.
The complaint about Zelaya from the people who have taken over the country was that the legitimately elected president of Honduras wanted to hold an advisory referendum on whether to consider altering the constitution to allow elected executives to serve two terms.
In order to prevent the referendum vote, the coup kidnapped an elected president, spirited him out of the country and installed a new unelected president. Then they suspended civil liberties.
Outside of an Orwellian novel, or the mid-day slot on talk radio stations, some basic principles still apply:
Getting elected. Organizing referendums. Proposing constitutional amendments. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing democracy.
Kidnapping the president. Installing an unelected strongman. Suspending civil liberties. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing a coup.
14 Comments so far
Show AllAll these Far Right comments don't get it. Uribe in Colombia did the same thing Zelaya was considering (And asking for public opinion--Seems democratic to me) and the US cheered this thug (A Pinochet wannabe) for his actions. I guess I must be missing something here. Oh, no, I get it. Uribe is a friend to the US and special interests, caring little for human rights and the rule of law while Zelaya, on the other hand, is a true elected official believing in democracy, social benefits, the rule of law and human rights.Guess the latter had to go so it could be business as usual in a country bought and paid for by genocide and environmental rape--The price of American dollars.
Like the saying "Politics make strange bedfellows", Rush Limbaugh and Lyndon Larouche defending the Honduran military coup............
Ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya was in violation of Honduras constitution and was dismissed for that by the nations Supreme Court.
The Honduran Constitution states a president can only hold office for one term. Mr. Zelaya was going to hold a national referendum which if passed would have required the National Assembly to meet and discuss repealing the one-term provision in their constitution. The problem is in their constitution it states if an official presents such a referendum, that person must resign so not to gain personally, but allowing future office holders to benefit.
Disposed President Zelaya refused to resign which put him in violation of the constitution. The Supreme Court ordered him out of office and ordered the military to run him out of office. The military followed the constitutional orders from the Supreme Court, disposed the communist president, and turned the government back over to the National Assembly. There was no coup or over throw of the Honduran government. It was a Constitutional process which was followed.
Communist Hugo Chaves from Venezuela, communist Fidel Castro from Cuba, communist leaning Secretary of State Democrat Hillary Clinton, all support the ousted president and label what happened in Honduras as illegal. Then leftist Democrat President Barack Obama agreed with these Marxist.
The protesters were paid protesters and they needed to get these people off the streets, for their protection as well as the others. Especially after CNN and all their lies.
Since then the people of Honduras have come out in droves to protest CNN, the OAS, the return of Zelaya and to demonstrate for their governments decision, and to ask why is everyone against them being free. They want left alone, it is their decesion. -American living in Central America
"The protesters were paid protesters and they needed to get these people off the streets, for their protection as well as the others."
Goddamn you!
"... why is everyone against them being free."
Seems like your friends, the Totalitarian Right, have just expunged most freedoms allowed by the Honduran Constitution. So, why are your golpistas, the ones you're supporting, so eager to be "against them [Hondurans] being free?"
"Communist Hugo Chaves from Venezuela, communist Fidel Castro from Cuba, communist leaning Secretary of State Democrat Hillary Clinton, all support the ousted president and label what happened in Honduras as illegal. Then leftist Democrat President Barack Obama agreed with these Marxist. "
Hillary Clinton is communist leaning, and a Marxist? You need to read more history, more philosophy, more economics.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/01-7
"President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. "
"This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions"
"Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve."
"The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya's term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya's term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected."
"These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. "
"It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region."
"Ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya was in violation of Honduras constitution and was dismisse"
Bullshit, bjinbelize you are obviously a stooge. Fuck off.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
You simply do not have a clue.
The referendum was to discover if Hondurans wanted a new constitution.
Nothing to do with term limits.
Pull somebody else's leg, troll.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p087.pdf
The blueprint for this coup to happen here has been written.
Anyone want to take bets that we've already met the general that will "lead us through these troubled times"?
karlof1 is correct - the non-binding ballot was to sound out support for a citizen's constitutional asembly aimed at ammending the current constitution, a process which has happened in several Latin American countries over recent years. This was the reason for the Honduran establishment's freakout. The second term thing is just spin. However, Nichols doesn't say that the second term thing was the rationale - he says that it was the complaint "from the people who have taken over the country".
Excellent coverage of the Honduran situation can be found at narconews.com, the same fine folks who provided the best coverage available anywhere on the Venezualan coup in 2002.
To clarify Nichols' error:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/01-7
"President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. "
"This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions"
"Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve."
"The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya's term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya's term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected."
John Nichols has inadvertantly repeated two canards diseminated by the coup-plotters that Zalaya's "referendum" was about him serving another term. First, it was not a referendum, but a poll, and it said nothing about Zalaya running for another term; it was whether the Honduran people wanted to hold a referendum to establish a constitutional assembly. Be careful, John.
"Totalitarian Right" is a good descriptive term. Too bad Nichols doesn't use the few seconds it takes to type the truth to the lies about the coup's rationale--The non-binding ballot was ultimately aimed at expanding democracy by writing an enlightened constitution to replace the reactionary one installed during Reagan's terroristic war on the peoples of Central America.
Exactly! How does such a large error make it into an article which is substantively supportive of the ousted president? Why reinforce the lie? This is happening all over particularly noticed in articles about the abortive colour coded putsch in Iran.
The totalitarian right are indeed terrified of democracy.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days