| Revision as of 20:41, 28 June 2009 editDentren (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers37,577 edits →Coup or a legal act?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:50, 28 June 2009 edit undo80.127.58.65 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| #Sorround the presidential recidency with military | #Sorround the presidential recidency with military | ||
| #Do actions againts the ambasadors of other countries. | #Do actions againts the ambasadors of other countries. | ||
| Well I dont speak Spanish, but there is Google translator... I found in the 'President section' nothing about removal of office. I did found this in the 'Supreme Court section': | |||
| ARTICLE 319 .- The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (...omission by me...) 2. Meet the offenses of both officers and senior officials of the Republic, when Congress has declared the formation of a cause; | |||
| I dont know if president is a 'senior official of the republic', but I suppose he is, and Congress did plan to impeach Zelaya. And Zelaya was kinda breaking the law by not following the court orders. | |||
| About the post above me, I also found it all a bit fast. Normally you would expect a trial. But about the ambassador of Venuzuela that was kidnapped and beaten: all that I found about this was a statement of Hugo Chavez, president of Venuzuela. I do not think that we can have Hugo Chavez as a reliable source for anything, IMHO. (And I am a moderate leftist European, if you are interrested in my political views :)] (]) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:50, 28 June 2009
 | Central America Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Coup or a legal act?
Can this event be considered as a military coup as the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered (according to the BBC) the Army to remove the president who refused to cancel his illegal referendum and to reapoint the Amrmy Chief as ordered by the same court. I deem that this is not coup but a constitutional remeoval from office ordered by the Court and executed by the Army. --80.222.253.214 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The BBC article does not say that the Supreme Court ordered the army to do anything at all. All the article says is, "The Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president." That doesn't necessarily mean the court wanted the army to do anything at all. Ratemonth (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
After reading a translation from freetranslation.com of http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/06/28/Noticias/Fuerzas-Armadas-han-actuado-en-base-a-derecho-dice-la-justicia-hondurena I think that perhaps 80.222.253.214 is right; it does appear the court may have given the military some legal authority to do this, but I am not sure exactly what the court approved. Ratemonth (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup 200.26.166.6 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, the international community was quick to condemn the 'military coup', a was I. But if really the Supreme Court ordered the president's removal and its legal, then there was no coup...then there was a legal removal of the president. I also read some BBC stories about Honduras the last days and it seems that the ousted president wasnt following the Rule of Law. If there is more reliable references about the legal aspect of the sack of the president by the Court, we should replace 'Coup' with 'sacking of the president'. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Did the Supreme Court have the legal power to remove the president? I know the Congress was preparing to impeach Zelaya. In many countries legally removing an elected leader is done by the legislature, not by the courts. Does anyone know what Honduran law says about this? On the referendum article, someone linked to a copy of the Honduran constitution. Unfortunately I don't read Spanish, so I can't go and look for the answer. The link is http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html if anyone wants to try.Ratemonth (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- If the supreme cout would have had the legal power to remove Zelaya from office then it would not have been nessesary to do it in such "coup styled" way, I mean
- few hours until a referendum
- Deport the president (are they not going to judge him)
- Sorround the presidential recidency with military
- Do actions againts the ambasadors of other countries.
Well I dont speak Spanish, but there is Google translator... I found in the 'President section' nothing about removal of office. I did found this in the 'Supreme Court section':
ARTICLE 319 .- The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (...omission by me...) 2. Meet the offenses of both officers and senior officials of the Republic, when Congress has declared the formation of a cause;
I dont know if president is a 'senior official of the republic', but I suppose he is, and Congress did plan to impeach Zelaya. And Zelaya was kinda breaking the law by not following the court orders. About the post above me, I also found it all a bit fast. Normally you would expect a trial. But about the ambassador of Venuzuela that was kidnapped and beaten: all that I found about this was a statement of Hugo Chavez, president of Venuzuela. I do not think that we can have Hugo Chavez as a reliable source for anything, IMHO. (And I am a moderate leftist European, if you are interrested in my political views :)80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Categories: