Chile Forum

This is all pretty funny from Jhyre. Really democracy is best served apparently by shutting down the media? Seems like if the those on the right do it, it's fine but if the left do it-well, they're dictators Really, I can't bother addressing the rest of this.

Where was the outrage when Colombian President Álvaro Uribe managed to get the constitution amended once to allow re-election( and is poised to repeat the feat)? Hmmm, seems very Chavez-like to me. But of course Columbia's president is "conservative" and Chavez is not. Oh, never mind-I see my error. One is right wing, the other is left wing.

To argue that critiques of the coup are failures to “come to the aid of checks and balances” as the junta has announced is a remarkable statement given that there is no constitutional authority given to the Supreme Court of Justice to order the pre-dawn arrest and exile of a sitting president.

Let’s stop and think about this for a moment: why in the wee hours of the morning? If this was a normal process, why not show up at a more civilized hour and calmly tell the president that he is being exiled, and would he please come along–after all, it is legal and all that. Actions aren’t relegated to pre-dawn because they are orderly and normal.

Third, and this is in some ways the issue that bothers me the most by those who see this move as the salvation of democracy: what about due process and rule of law? Yes, Zelaya was engaged in illegal actions, so find a legally appropriate way of dealing with it. Summary judgment and immediate exile aren’t exactly the hallmarks of democratic governance (petty criminals get more process than that). It seems that most of the defenders of the coup (or those who wish to dismiss the notion that it was a coup) assume that arrest and exile was not only legal, but it was basically the only option available.

It is possible, by the way, to believe that Zelaya was acting illegally and recklessly with his plebiscite idea and that the move against him was an unconstitutional coup that had nothing to do with democratic governance.

Just a moderate observation.

RWS- Mussolini and Hitler were socialists??? They were facists-you must have misspoke... I'm sure a historian would know better.

And finally, jhyre called my remark and Reuters news article a "potshot". Yes, I do live here in Chile and have better things to do than listen to such nonsense. A potshot, no, I thought it was just a remark and a news article. I am here on the internet but need to go finish a few thinks before we go to friends party scheduled for 10:30 pm. Only in Chile.

The question is who do you root for in a country like Honduras? Those conservatives defending democracy are making sure what little wealth is available stays in the hands of the few. The military backs them up because they know which side their bread is buttered on. If you are an ambitious fellow but aren't part of the ruling elite, you claw your way to the top of the poor masses using democracy to your benefit. And eventually there's the clash with the establishment.. As long as you have a desperately poor majority with no future, you'll have conflict. As long as the wealthy see the poor as a resource to be exploited conflict is inevitable. If only the left would realize that there isn't a system better than free market capitalism for feeding, clothing, and housing the most people. If only the right would realize that rewarding hard work with fair pay is not only the right thing to do, but in their best interests to do so.. If only both sides would realize there's a limit to what can be done, and learn to live within those limits.

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . RWS- Mussolini and Hitler were socialists??? They were facists-you must have misspoke... I'm sure a historian would know better. . . .

Indeed, he would, Laura. How would you define "fascism"? It's state socialism in a chauvinistic or "nationalistic" setting. The totalitarian and single- or dominant-party aspects are notable, too, though not (I think most would agree) essential.

All this rant about "left" and "right" is really quite giddy. Such a two-dimensional apportionment of political philosophies is very irrational. Yes, it may have been accurate at times -- including at the inception of this model of analysis, the early stages of the French revolution of the 1780s and 1790s -- but it's not at all helpful now. Nor, I fear, is use or misuse of the word "liberal". What American wouldn't claim to desire liberty and freedom for each individual?

So, please, if we're to engage in any effective discussion of the matter at hand, the deposition of the Honduran president, why don't we just stick to the facts of the matter and start by perusing the Honduran constitution? The text is easily available and not difficult to read.

That fascism is a subset of (or at most distant, a cousin to) socialism is both established from a historical perspective, and in plain sight given their philosophical (and practical) proximity.


>It is possible, by the way, to believe that Zelaya was acting illegally and recklessly with his plebiscite idea and that the move against him was an unconstitutional coup that had nothing to do with democratic governance.

That's a pretty good point, and the immediate aftermath with curfew and all is not all roses, if I'm to believe what CATO was blogging about it recently.

wow, mr. hyre, that was quite a blast of hot air. are you a lawyer?

i'm not "hacked off" over this issue.... more like amused...especially at YOUR knee jerk reactions. you seem to have lost your objectivity. perhaps a retired public school teacher can help you re-locate it.

to address of few of the issues on this thread:

i said that the honduran people need to sort this out. yes, and hopefully they can do it with as little violence as possible. zelaya has obviously overstepped his political power, and perhaps his legal authority as well. i don't know. i haven't read the honduran constitution, nor do i plan to. there are thousands of lawyers who can do that for me, and some of them obviously need the work. the congress and the military may have also overstepped. i'd guess that they have....i mean, the general idea of a democracy is to let the people choose their representatives (which the honduran people did, legally, correctly, without controversy, a few years ago) and then choose new leaders from time to time. it seems right to let that process happen without a coup.

zelaya's "referendum" may have been a last minute power grab, since it seems clear he won't win another term for himself in november. it may have been illegal, according to honduran law. equally, the military action against the president may have been illegal, according to honduran law. is anyone surprised that each side tries to use their constitution to justify their actions? why do they do that? because they all want the APPEARANCE of democracy, because they all know it matters. zelaya wants it and so do the people who sent him into exile.

does zelaya truly want to govern based on democratic principles? perhaps...according to his understanding of what that means...same for new guy. it's a highly subjective matter....as we saw from the recent regime change in the US....bush's concept of "democratic principles" is very different from obama's....and zelaya's is different from michiletti's. i don't pretend to know what's going on inside zelaya's head, or michiletti, or insulza, or anyone else involved. perhaps they are all sincere. perhaps they are all crooks...i dunno...maybe we'll learn more about that in the next few weeks. generally, i trust obama more than bush. i don't know enough about the actors in the honduran drama to know who to trust. wait n see.

we'd all like to see the legal/social/political mechanisms in honduras obtain some kind principled resolution. but that requires time and patience and trust in those same mechanisms, and unfortunately recent reports from honduras are hinting at massive riots instead. if the honduran people want to put a conservative in office, they can do that in november. zelaya is probably on his way to jail. let's hope he gets a fair trial and that the elections go well.

Excellent post cali. Retrospectively, the coup planners probably regret that they didn't allow the clock to run out on Zelaya's term in office. Sadly, the credibility and reputation of Honduras has been badly damaged.

Well, I had a pleasant Dependence Day, thank you. Taking a day off to reflect on how lucky we are to have people like Obama who are smarter & kinder than we are and who sagaciously use our money and freedom to take care of us for our own good. Was hoping for free health care and higher taxes/debt by today, but the forces of reaction have slowed the Wise One, and even He has limitations, so all I got was the higher debt. Perhaps next Dependence Day I will have more dependence than I do today. One can only….Hope!

Nice to see that the usual suspects, err, progressives on the site did not rest quite so much. Let’s see what they have to say about Honduras’ alarming failure to keep the Red Thug Dejour in power, starting with Laura.

Well, Laura asserts that I have a double-standard in re media shut-downs. But then she immediately says she will not discuss it. Sounds like a pot shot with nothing at all to back it up. Look, if your argumentative skills are limited to implying that I am a hypocrite, at least follow through and show us the hypocrisy. Half-hearted ad-hominem slaps really don’t do much for your case. See, Jedi Mind Tricks & Proper Targets for Same.

I do not recollect discussing Uribe or his attempts to amend the Columbian Constitution, but it would appear that I have already asserted, in your mind, that his constitution-amending is AOK. I must’ve slept through that one. Predictably, I like Uribe – as do most Columbians. I am not aware of his attempt(s) to amend his constitution, whether they were legal or whether they were successful. As such, I presently have no real opinion on the specific situation. I certainly do not have enough of an opinion in my own mind, much less in writing, to deserve the implicit smear of “hypocrite” that you so enjoy ladling out. Given Latin America’s propensity toward cult of personality (we in the US know something about that nowadays) and abuse of executive office, I am not generally inclined to view attempts to stay in power very favorably, even when such attempts are perfectly legal and initiated by leaders whom I otherwise respect. Laura, you initiated the topic of Columbia, are you prepared to introduce some facts and discussion? Or was this simply another off-topic cheap shot that you are unable/unwilling to actually argue in a rational manner? Ypu have time to smear, but social activities get in the way of time for facts?

You assert that the SC in Honduras has no authority to order arrest (especially a nasty “pre-dawn” arrest) of President. Article 239, from Chapter 6, Power of the Executive, of the Honduran Constitution found at http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitution ... ond82.html (which article was cited in CSM article posted by Otravers) states:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

Pay special attention to how explicit it is: Any who even proposes changing the limitation on one term and anyone who directly or indirectly supports such an attempt, immediately ceases in their role and shall be kept from any public function by the army for ten years. Sounds pretty clear to me. I do not even see a prohibition on pre-dawn arrests. I’ll bet that limitation is in the same place where abortion is a guaranteed right, as surely it is…..

People, pay attention. This is how liberals argue – this is how Castros and Chavezes ultimately perpetuate their power and their crimes. This is how unelected Supreme Court Justices in the US overturn democracy when people stubbornly vote down liberal initiatives. Laura says that from her standpoint, this looks & smells wrong. It was not perfectly carried out by her subjective standards and therefore cannot be correct. This is the dangerous wedge. The reason Honduras’ constitution is SO direct and clear on this point is because if you leave ANY ambiguity, even the tiniest little jot, liberals will subvert that meaning to achieve their ends. That’s how they’ve turned the US Constitution on its head – they create meaning that exists only in their minds, which is why they hate “Original Intent” jurisprudence. Original Intent lends clear meaning to words, meaning that presents a bar to liberal goals. To subvert a constitution (as they have in the US), they cannot permit discussion of meaning or intent, they need a vacuum of meaning, a “living breathing document” that can be filled by their own “meaning”, silly putty in their “caring” hands. The Hondurans recognized this problem and adapted to meet it. They used much more narrow and explicit language than was used in the more classically-penned US Constitution. The language of the Honduran constitution, on this very sensitive point, is very, very clear. That way the times are subordinate to the constitution, as should be, and not the other way around. Laura expresses what she wishes were true and tries to smear the Hondurans by painting their actions as thuggish, which is not at all a “moderate” action on her part. Their constitution was drafted with such opinions, attacks, smears and attempts to muddy the water in mind. I hope those who one day reform the US Constitution, perhaps hundreds of years from now, take note and update the writing style to be more explicit and resistant to such demagogy. Score one for the Honduran constitution.

Calling Zelaya’s removal a coup over and over, as liberals and the US media (redundant, I know) are doing will not make a lawful removal a coup, any more than repeatedly calling government spending “investment” will make it so. George Orwell wrote & warned about the misuse and abuse of language by totalitarians. Observe as the left applies those lessons, live, today, in your living room.

Laura is amazed to learn that Hitler & Mussolini were socialists – and trust me, they were. The selective memory of progressives towards the history of their own movement always amazes me. In a nutshell, here’s how it worked:

• Fascism is much, much closer to socialism than to liberal democracy (old use of “liberal”, not the modern). Socialism and fascism both involve large powerful governments that control or own the means of production. Here’s a list of what Mussolini, the former socialist, and inventor of kissing-cousin fascism favored:
o Universal suffrage
o End of the draft
o Repeal titles of nobility
o Eight-hour workday
o Government bodies run by workers representatives
o Reform of pension system
o Max ages for hazardous work
o Expropriation of landowners estates for veterans & cooperatives\
o Rigidly secular schools
o Large progressive tax on capital
o Seizure of goods belonging to religious congregations & abolition of episcopal revenues
o Tax of 85% on war profits

What does that sound like to you? If you read progressive magazines and newspapers of the 1920’s & 1930’s (e.g. – New Republic, etc.), they are FULL of contempt for corrupt democracy and explicit admiration for Mussolini and his methods, which “made the trains run on time”. Socialism and fascism are VERY similar, as any honest analysis of fascist Italy, Spain & Romania (for example) will show. Even (or perhaps especially) an analysis of the National Workers Socialist Party of Germany (acronym in German = Nazi) will show FAR more common ground with socialists than with old-fashioned liberal democracy.

So why do we falsely associate “fascism” with the Right today? Because the victors write the history, and in the cultural wars for the press, film industry and Hollywood, the Left overwhelming crushed and drove out traditional liberals, what we today call conservatives. Here’s what happened:

Socialism and Fascism were SO alike (compare the programs and read the Progressive’s admiration in the press) that they competed for the same base. No war is as nasty as a civil war, and the two systems were so close, that a civil war is exactly what happened on the streets of Italy and Germany. Once the fascist street fighters won in those two countries, large numbers of said fighters and other members of “the base” converted wholesale to the other side (with Intellectuals being a major exception) – it was so close, and so easy. For a time, the far-left socialists (Stalin) and fascists were united as allies, alike in their programs (and repression) and in their common contempt of Western Democracy. Before this alliance came apart (and especially after June 22, 1941), Stalin applied the term “fascist” to mean anything “bad”. Liberals still do that today. Back in the USSR, that term was a death sentence. Given the breadth of application and literal use as a synonym of “bad” or “very bad”, that made for lots of deaths (which Progressives bent over to deny, conceal, minimize or apologize for, right up to Jimmy Carter). It is the warfare between socialist/communist and fascist that made for an argument that they were “opposites”. A frank analysis shows that they were quite alike, with fascists substituting “race” or “nation” for the concept of “class”. The nastiness of the war between the two (internal & external) backs my point, for this was a war between heretics, comparable to the nastiness between Catholic & Protestant, or between Sunni & Shiite. Civil wars and wars against heretics are always the worst.

Of course, liberals (modern use) in the US managed to grossly out-McCarthy old Joe McCarthy, and have destroyed or aborted (appropriate term) the careers of conservatives in the university, the press and the entertainment industry. That is why these professions are overwhelmingly occupied by liberals today. The people in these industries are the ones who write and communicate history. They stuck with the Stalinist line, which helped erase an historical fact from the record and to make their prevailing leftist philosophy smell better, by blaming the crimes of their more nationalistic cousins on their present day enemies – the traditional liberals (conservatives) who were despised by both the socialist Left and the nationalist Left. It’s probably the greatest sleight of hand trick in history.

An honest comparison of WHAT socialists and fascists sought to achieve and HOW they both sought to achieve it shows a striking similarity, just as Protestantism was quite similar to Catholicism in say 1630. Substitute “race” or “nation” for “class” as the basis of solidarity, ignore Stalinist/Western Intellectual redefinition of the term “fascist” from “nationalistic socialism” (literally, Nazi!) to “bad, bad, bad” and "alot like US Republicans" and it all fits together.

Amazing how ignorant leftists are of their own movement. Of course, given its history, one could see why they’d like to reject that particular “label”.

John Hyre, More Later as I recover from Dependence Day

Oh JHyre, you are a humorous man...but where is the part in the constitution where he should be arrested in his pajamas and taken to another country? Can't a president be removed from office any other way?

So the referendum was basically a non-binding opinion poll of the people. And it was legal until after the vote was already scheduled. At that time Honduran Congress pass a law banning referendums within so many days of an election:

The Honduran Congress passed a new law on Tuesday, after an unusual late-night legislative session. The measure, called the Ley Especial que Regula el Referéndum y el Plebiscito, establishes specific restrictions on the power of the executive to call for national referendums by prohibiting plebiscites and referendums 180 days before or after a national election.

Since you and the military are big fans of the constitution, they probably know that Section 2 of the constitution stipulates that usurping popular sovereignty is "treason against the fatherland." If they're going to exempt themselves from treason charges, they're going to have to rewrite the constitution. Ironic, eh?

Also, I come to the forum, not to argue with right wing attorneys ranting about their own right wing philosophy excerpted from Fox News...but because I live in Chile. I love to hear opinions and advice from those who live in Chile. Certainly, some discussion is fun but frankly, I have no desire to write a long rebuttal to these rants. Socialism and fascism are alike in a sort of 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon sort of way. And Allende and Pinochet were nearly cousins.

Start a blog or three....or 46 if you still have time. There a million right wing sites with a million or more conspiracy theories for you to post comments. Really, you're in Columbus Ohio? Why are you posting here?

JHyre,

What I find disturbing is that, in your first two July 3 posts, although you indicate uncertainty about the legality of the actions taken by the Honduran SC in the arrest and deportation of Zelaya you go on to state that the overthrow was justified because of other alleged crimes committed by Zelaya. This suggests to me that (presumably for ideological reasons) you really don't care a whit about the rule of law in this situation. Help me understand why this isn't an example of a end justifying the means rationale on your part.
You were undoubtedly relieved to subsequently read the Christian Science Monitor opinion piece, provided by otravers, suggesting that the actions taken by the SC were constitutional.

@jhyre
Anyone who wants to criticize socialism and link it to fascism is just grasping at historical straws. Who cares if Mussolini wanted to implement socialist reforms through fascism, Pinochet implimented free market reforms through fascism; it's a vehicle to implement whatever result is desired through extreme repression.

I think a good example of modern day socialism achieved through democracy today is the Nordic Model, and that people who go on and on about the dangers of socialism should take a long look at it.

Well said carica! Fascism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism ... characteristics that are the antitheses of socialism as practiced by Nordic countries.

Laura,

Wow, you really showed me. The military violated the “not to be arrested in Jamis” clause of the Honduran constitution. It’s modeled on the clause to the US Constitution requiring convicted rapists to be fed their choice of crunchy or smooth peanut butter. As for spiriting the Red Thug Dejour out of the country, perhaps the HC bans it – though I rather doubt it. Burden is on you to show that it is illegal, as opposed to simply “disliked by Laura”. I think getting him out helps prevent bloody mayhem – as we shall likely see once/if he manages to return. Not that public safety matters to truly “caring” progressives.

The new law passed by the legislature is at best an additional reason to get rid of the joker, and at worst irrelevant. Kindly address what you and your fellow travelers have been desperately trying to avoid: Article 239, written plain as day. Or just admit that you do not care what the law says when trying to support anti-US leftists.

Usurping popular sovereignty essentially means imposing a dictatorship, which is clearly not even arguable here (though it’d be fun to watch you try and make the argument). Popular sovereignty doesn’t mean that the populace gets to vote on Article 239 or hold referenda before the courts & military can enforce it. Nor does it mean that a “referendum" can be held at random to contravene the Honduran constitution or achieve a result desired by Zeleya, Laura or the “international community”.

Why do you avoid addressing the arguments presented? Why not actually look at Article 239 and tell us how we are misinterpreting it? Or why not just admit that you do not care about the law if you disagree with it? Heck, even a weak argument that "it's the law, but it is a stupid law" would beat your peformance thus far.

As for the remainder of your comments…..they say far more about you than they do about me. Following this site over time, I have seen plenty of vicious little smears from you (and your fellow travelers) in re Bush, etc, etc that make my comments seem like the milk of human kindness. You can dish well, but you cannot take at all. In the future, if you dislike my non-Chile-centric posts on the non-Chile-centric portion of the forum, ignore them. Otherwise, spare us the pathetic whining so typical of liberals who get some of what they like to dish out and end up “offended”. Waaaa, freaking waaaaa.


John,

First, I would reread the posts. For example, in the first post, I stated that the facts (less clear then than now) indicated that “The army did its lawful duty after the lawful system of checks and balances (legislature and courts) kicked in.” I’m glad to now have solid confirmation of the initial facts (which I was honest enough to admit were still developing at the time) and my initial instinct. As such, I am not (presently!) arguing that the ends justify the means, for the means themselves were respected, making that argument irrelevant. That might make a fun topic for future discourse. For some discussion along those lines (actually relevant to Chile!), check out some of the rather extensive discussion that occurred here in re Pinochet. Trust me, it’s not the sort of discussion or information likely to occur in the US, where those atop the cultural heights have completely airbrushed one side out of the history books.

Tell me, how do YOU read Article 239 of the HC?


Cali,

Lawyer? Guilty as charged, as you well know. Fortunately, I am more of an old-fashioned sort of lawyer who does silly things like discover and argue facts, apply law, etc. That resulted from ignoring modern teachers who tend to substitute indoctrination for instruction. I’m quite certain you know exactly what I mean. If what I spewed was hot air, how sad that you find yourself unable to address or refute it. Article 239....anyone? Anyone? Hello? Ah, per your own words, you do not plan to read the Constitution or the couple of sentences I helpfully posted, also known as “the law”. In short, you could care less what the Honduran law says. It is much easier to simply say to try and create equivalence between all those pesky facts that are “unclear” and say we should trust the OAS. Ah, but you also want to leave the Hondurans alone, which contradicts going with the OAS. And you accuse me of spewing hot air? I think that the process of Honduran law is taking care of the issue in a proper manner so far, and I would agree that outsiders should leave it be. That would imply stop trying to force Honduras to reinstate Zeleya, per the OAS, Obama, etc. So which is it? Let them be or trust the OAS? At this point, those opinions are mutually exclusive.

GJJIM,

You voice in the wilderness, you! Thanks for the kind words. And remember to take your Little Red Book to the P.R. of Boulder. Showering optional!


All,

Perhaps we’ll pick up fascism/socialism later. For the moment, I am content to stick to the Honduran issue.

John Hyre, Silly Lawyer Who Thinks “Law Matters” & “Words Mean Things”

PS: Still No Comment on Article 239 – Buehler, Buehler, Buehler....I think that says it all.