Yuku free message boards

This guy was ALREADY trying to stage a coup of his own. His "referendum" was in direct violation of their constitution and was against the direct (and legal) orders of both the legislative and judicial branches of their government. He was trying to jimmy their constitution in order to become El Presidente for life, just like his buddy Hugo Chavez. The situation was critical. Failure to act quickly would have resulted in a dictatorship - which thankfully they have now avoided by kicking the bum out.

One other thing. Impeachment is the proper method in OUR government, as established by OUR constitution. I don't know the details of how it is supposed to work in THEIR government. Do you?

Once again, I ask you to consider the hypothetical scenario I mentioned above - substitute the US for Honduras, George W. Bush for Zelaya, and 2007 for 2009. Sure, impeachment is the right way to go under normal circumstances in the US. But suppose the situation was NOT normal - suppose this hypothetical power hungry Bush had made it plain he intended to overthrow the constitution and set himself up as President for life, and suppose further (as happened in Honduras) that both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government were united in PREVENTING that disaster from happening.

Would you still feel that the legal formalities of impeachment - which we all know from experience takes a LONG time and is by no means assured of success - was the right way to to prevent the constitution from being destroyed? Speaking for myself, if a president - ANY president, whether Bush or Obama or any other - did the things that Zelaya did in this country, I would FULLY support the military in giving the SOB a boot print on the arse and a one way ticket to anyplace else.

When a "leader" is trying to game the system and give himself more power - as Zelaya was CLEARLY doing - there isn't time for niceties. Action must be taken to prevent catastrophe. The people of Honduras know this a lot better than we do - we've never lived under a military dictatorship, but they have. They know what it's like to have a repressive government, and that's WHY they have such severe term limits (Presidents are limited to a single, 4 year term) to begin with.

I hope the military, the legislature, and the judiciary of Honduras stick to their plan and tell Obama and the other socialists calling for Zelaya's reinstatement to go pound sand. They'll be glad they did, and if they cave in and reinstate the SOB, they'll be sorry.

I tend to agree that "the kidnapping [of] a democratically elected President by the military is not a good precedent", but I do think that the situation called for it, regardless of whether it's a good precedent or not. History shows that demagogues like Zelaya who aren't satisfied with the limits placed upon their power will seek to increase their power by any means. The list of men who have done this is endless, and it includes names such as Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.

The normal, "legal" means (and of course "legal" is different from country to country) of removing a leader from power are usually time consuming and cumbersome - and often they don't work. In a crisis situation, where time is of the essence, responsible parties must sometimes take action - and precedent be #!+$@#.

Consider the example of Hitler. He was legally and democratically elected. The German Weimar Republic at that time had a constitutional democracy in many ways similar to our own. Like our government there checks and balances, dividing power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. Hitler, as elected, had many constraints on his power - he couldn't simply rule by decree. And so over the first few years of his regime he set about changing things, using whatever means he felt were necessary. Within a very short period of time he became unassailable.

But for a few short years, the Weimar Republic had it within its power to remove him. He could have been legally impeached if the legislature had had the will to do so. Ah, but Hitler had his own private army (the SA - aka "Brown Shirts") and using this he was able to intimidate anyone who stood against him (and some few brave souls did try - they all ended up either dead or imprisoned). The reality of the situation throughout the early to mid 1930's was that only the military had the means to remove him from office. Of course they chose not to do so - they were largely in agreement with his policy goals so they weren't about to do anything to slow him down. But IF the military had had the will to do so it could have. No other legal entity could have accomplished it, because Hitler had the means to suppress them if they dared to try (and they knew it).

No doubt there are many differences between that scenario and the one in Honduras, but there are a good many similarities as well. The very fact that Zelaya was able to storm the place where the illegal referendum ballots were stored shows that he had resources similar to Hitler's brown shirts. He had been in power for over 3 years and had had time to gather resources necessary to ensure he remained in power. He had "muscle", and could raise an angry mob of supporters if needed. If the Honduran military had supported him - even passively by turning a blind eye to his illegal activities - neither the legislature or the judiciary would have had the power necessary to stop him. They could have passed resolutions in futility, but without the pure, physical power (in other words, FORCE) necessary to put down a man who was ALREADY acting in complete disregard of either the constitution or the rule of law.

I really don't see that they had any choice. It was either give Zelaya the boot, or accept his inevitable dictatorship.

I agree the rule of law is a good thing and must be respected and preserved. But sometimes it just doesn't work. In this situation, I think the Hondurans did exactly the right thing. It's not like we have some power mad general staging a coup and placing himself in the big chair. No, the head of the legislature took on the presidency temporarily, and the scheduled November elections are still going to be held.

Yawn. Same old same old.

For many decades now socialists (of every flavor) have always been quick to cry oppression whenever some government makes any kind of effort to defend itself against them. But of course, with socialists, the ends always justify any and all means - they can commit any crime and be able to count on their fellow travelers and other useful idiots to look the other way or to defend them if someone dares to call attention to their deeds.

Sorry SD, but such people have been crying "WOLF" for so long I have long since stopped taking them seriously. I suppose every now and then there really is a wolf, but how can such people be believed when they've proven themselves over many decades to be the worst sort of liars and hypocrites.

The language itself ought to give you some indication SD. Bared fangs like a vampire at nightfall? Freedom and democracy burned and buried alive? Give me a break. Anyone who feels it necessary to use such shrill, over the top language is only trying to disguise the fact that they don't have enough clues to reach a single valid conclusion.