Chile Forum

Thanks, CC48. Though not addressing the constitutional articles in play beyond a nod to 239, this at least is both substantive and interesting.

I should add that I'm relieved that you wanted that glass of Syrah -- if this is short!

Here are some facts:

JohnHyre is not Honduran.
JohnHyre is not in Honduras.
JohnHyre has not ever been to Honduras.
JohnHyre does not know anyone from Honduras.
JohnHyre does not know anyone that has been to Honduras.

JohnHyre did not write the Honduran Constitiution.
JohnHyre is reading about the present Honduran situation and its constitution on the internet.
The media/press is reporting the Honduran situation on the internet as well as on TV and in print.

The internet is inaccurate. The media/press reports news and events with a slant according to the editorial direction of the publisher and therefore for as many media outlets as there are available, there will be as many views of an event.

=======================================================================================


One man's constitution is another man's warm blanket as he sleep's on a cold hard bench in the park for the 98th day in row, when he doesn't have a job, food or place to go. The US constitution would not work in Nigeria...and the Nigerian constitution wouldn't work in Germany...a constitution is unique, interpretive, individual and tailored to fit the special history, direction and psychology of a people within set geographical area....we can logically assume that every word and coma or apsotrophe has a special meaning that goes back to something that can only have been experienced by an individual within that landed boundry.

It seems fine to speculate on what it might mean or could mean or should mean but the fact is, JohnHyre doesn't really know because he isn't Honduran...the fact is that JohnHyre makes an excellent interpretation of what a person within one geographical boundry says about another geographical boundry and what is taking place there...but just because he says it, does not make it accurate or factual...and then his application of his own view, even less so. I think it would be easy and simple to say that the objections to JohnHyre are more about shoving his own view down people's throats, then what he is saying.

We are all pushing our own opinion of course but then you can heat up your words nicely, serve them with a nice wine...put on some perfume and spoon feed the recipient with slick and gentle words that fill a belly or...you can carve your view out of stone and and word by word pass them past teeth and tongue with the business end of a toilet plunger at mach speed. Personally, I appreciate the fervor and fanatisim of the JohnHyre...I agree with a lot of what he says and I get what he is saying but you can't really apply it, in its full strength, directly from the bottle...its a guide, a shadow that we should allow to fall over what we read, see and do. I think i could apply what some of the others have said as well...but everyone is yelling so much in here that you can't really hear and concentrate anymore....so what happens is, what happens everywhere else like in Honduras...we make our way and try to stay out of it enough that we can see what's going on but stay off to the side and not get so dirty that we have to go inside and change clothes...

The closest factual interpretation would have to be made by a Honduran...and then how accurate could it be with their bias based on what they are about in their own country? The Law? What is the law? I sh*t on the law...does it mean that I don't follow the law? I follow the law but I am never surprised when others do not. Its illegal to enter the United States un-documented and yet there are over 11 million people doing it, so what does our law mean?

I will tell you that the latin peoples view of the law, is that when a man becomes, in some capacity, an enforcer of the law, he sees himself as actually being the law and its why, typically, in latin countries, the law is handled through fat fleshy hands demanding and getting a bribe to set right, a wrong. "I am the law" he will say to himself and "I am enforcing the law" continuing with "...this penalty ($$) is justified..." and finishing with "I have done what is right as I am the law..." Its an easy jump to make when all are guilty until proven innocent and simply means the rifle becomes the gavel in this court of law and if you have the rifle, you make the law. Its for everyone else to take it away from you if they can. In what has taken place in Honduras, its simply that and nothing more and no fact of constitution, article or Venezuelan lear jet flying around will change it.


To me at least, it seems the only law or rule that holds true at the end of the day is what Cap'n Jack Sparrow says "...the only rule is what a man can do, and what he can't..."

puelche

PS: The great thing is that who ever ends up with the rifle...err, gavel, will have to produce or find his brains stepped on...whatever it is, it will have to work and provide the greatest good for the common man...thats the sweet spot and the law of the jungle.

Sr. P...probably one of the best excerpts from the Holy Book of El Puelche. A Smorgasboard for thought and contemplation. I miss you when you aren't around to straighten me out.

JohnHyre...Love ya too Brother!

But on the subject of Honduras, here is the link to a US Citizen living there, and her blog......

http://lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com/

Agree with her or not, this is an interesting first-person view of what is going on there.

Very interesting, Vicki. Thanks for an informative supplement to the other stories out there.

Legal arguments worth nothing in a coup d´etat, law is an useless discussion in this situation. Usually coups happen when situation is such that normal channels do not operate anymore and force -the foundation behind any state- operate instead. It is not rare that military take action against the government, it was usual not many years ago in Latin America and I think that this "will never happen in the future" is so naive as think that there will be not wars anymore. All the "saint anger" against military coups is a nonsense, it will happen any time that power is weak and the country go to chaos, there are no way to avoid that same as there are no way to avoid wars.

Last year the eastern provinces of Bolivia threatened secession due to Morales' leftist policies. Now Honduras. Both leaders strongly influenced by Chavez. The 800 lb gorilla in the room is are we starting to see a region wide right wing backlash? And possibly the return of military juntas?

JHyre,

You are too clever by half Mister Hyre. I think that your use of the subjunctive was just a clever ploy, on your part, to avoid having to go on the record that you come down on the side of Not waiting for the Impeachment.

You ask, "What do you think of Article 239?" I am not qualified to answer that question as I am not a constitutional lawyer. Are you?

Yes, I believe that the law does matter!!!

P,

As usual, your post is fun to read and informative. I especially like the part that says “I agree with a lot of what he says and I get what he is saying”. Lawyers with egos, and all. Unfortunately, I have a fundamental disagreement with your ultimate point. It is an intellectual, honest and respectful disagreement, but a very deep disagreement all the same, right down to the bone, right down to the premise.

Let me address the first half of your post. It is true, I am not Honduran. I do not play one on TV and I have not recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Ditto for you, so as to the two of us, the playing field is rather level. We can have a “battle of experts”, where you present “your Honduran” who holds your opinion and I can present “my Honduran” who holds my opinion. Why not dispense with the middleman and discuss the issue, based on what we know? Why not expand what we know by, among other things, referring to or consulting with Hondurans or people in Honduras who know things we do not (e.g. Honduran lawyer in CSM article previously linked, Vicks blog, etc.)?

I reject the notion that if I am not “x” (black, female, Honduran, whatever), I cannot discuss or opine on “x”.

I have eyes to see, ears to listen, a nose to smell. Most of all, I have a mind to understand. That mind can discern and successfully endeavour to see in the ultraviolet spectrum, even though my eyes are literally blind to the same. The mind can see much, particularly when not closed by limitations, such as “not being Honduran” or “irretrievably flawed by subjectivity”. The mind can seek information it does not have. The mind can discover. The mind can even discover and compensate for its own weaknesses. As you quite honestly point out, we may not be able to trust even Hondurans on the issue. We are all subjective and influenced by our experience. But we can use the powerful mind to know our limits (“cannot see ultraviolet”) and find ways around those limits (by inventing a machine that can ultraviolet). Part of discovery with the mind is reasoned debate, where people (hopefully!) point out relevant and important things that we did not know.

There is often a lot of chaff for the mind to sort through, some of the posts here being a perfect example. But the mind can focus and censor the clutter. It does take effort and a degree of self-honesty, which is why so few people bother to attempt the focus, much less achieve it.

Bottom line, I reject the idea that we cannot discuss the issue or reasonably opine on it due being insufficiently Honduran or irredeemably subjective. A is A, whether or not we ever see it perfectly. Our job is to use our considerable facilities to discover A.

I cannot agree with you as to law. Yes, people being people, they will try to subvert the law, avoid the law, manipulate the law. THAT is exactly why we need the law – to set a standard that limits (impossible to “eliminate”) human propensity to subvert, avoid or manipulate. A set of laws that creates a standard that more or less must be followed by all. Adherence will never be perfect – but there will be far more adherence with law than without. There will be a stronger degree of adherence in places where the law is “good” and where people take it seriously and expect it to be followed (Germany, traditional US vs. most of Latin America). No, it is not perfect. But it is far less imperfect than the alternative. You sh!t on the law? The place where everyone sh!ts on the law is called Mogadishu. Speaks for itself, I doubt either of us has plans to visit or reside there. Law matters. Clearly written law that is seen to be followed especially matters in a place like Honduras, where respect for the law is so fragile. If you sh!t on law in general, then things get decided based on raw power and violence, day in and day out. Mob or army, that’s it. To a degree, that will happen anyway – but “too a degree” beats 100% every time. Over time, as rule of law sinks in and becomes expected, respect for law increases, and pressure to comply increases – which is exactly what much of Latin America needs. Chile is often cited as being law-abiding by Latin standards and very successful by Latin standards. Coincidence? Mogadishu, Chile, US – which does Honduras most want to be like? Most people will probably vote for “not Mogadishu”. You sh!t on law in word, but in fact, your choices of residence tell us what you really think.

Words mean things. Sometimes the meaning is very clear. In that case, no context is required. Sometimes, meaning is more ambiguous (I remember the first time a Brit told me “that’s the dog’s bollocks!” – mutt nuts? That one took some explaining). In those cases we explore the context for meaning (Original Intent!).

The Honduran constitution contains a few clear - very deliberately clear – sentences that every single person taking the “con” position here has run from, like a vampire from a cross. I find that evasion extraordinarily telling. You wish it weren’t so and so you avoid. But when you open your eyes, it will still be there. A is A. What is, is.

Non-Hondurans can judge. Subjective, imperfect humans can use the mind to explore, discover – and judge. Law matters quite a lot. Hondurans are trying to make it matter where it so often has not. Words mean things. When unclear, we seek information to clarify. No lame excuse (“I’m not a constitutional lawyer”) suffices to avoid the very clear and simple language right here:

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.

I can already hear it in the background, the Monty-Pythonesque “Run Away! Run Away!”.

Well’s that today’s quota for online fun. Perhaps tomorrow I can address Cali’s points, I appreciate his post for what it had and what it had not. Not to mention the best freaking excuse for not posting I can conceive. Also want to check out Vick’s posted blog. But for now, back to the joys of legally & ethically sticking it to the IRS.

John Hyre, “fanatic”

JHyre wrote:. . . . I reject the notion that if I am not “x” (black, female, Honduran, whatever), I cannot discuss or opine on “x”. . . .

Thank goodness! With such a thoughtful, reasoned approach that rejects mediaeval relativity (and its concommitant racism and bigotry), we've a hope of establishing and maintaining a society that at least attempts to be fair to all on terms that are open and clear.

Thanks, John, for a careful and considered argument. Because no one else has addressed the articles of the Honduran constitution involved in this matter, I'll assume that there's no legitimate opposition to the actions of that country's judiciary and congress in replacement of the president and will for my part cease to hope for real discussion of the matter.

My best to all.

Oh good grief. To think Jhyres rants particularly against me began here....oh the constitution...and he goes on a tirade about the honduran constitution to which RWS "substantially agrees". And I hear the constitution hasn't been addressed. Which it has, if one has the patience to read through all these threads. Good points by many. But I'll continue although I would guess there's only one part of the constitution JHyre or Rws care about. Both attorneys.

Laura55llc wrote:

JHyre wrote:Honduras' "deposed" president had it coming. He was following in the footsteps of his mentor in Venezuela and attempting to gradually seize power and destroy democracy by selectively using the mob to undermine, and ultimately destroy, his country's laws in the naked pursuit of power.

John Hyre, supporting the "coup" that never was

Yes, sure sounds like democracy has since flourished

TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Honduras has shut down television and radio stations since an army coup over the weekend, in a media blackout than has drawn condemnation from an international press freedom group.

Shortly after the Honduran military seized President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica on Sunday, soldiers stormed a popular radio station and cut off local broadcasts of international television networks CNN en Espanol and Venezuelan-based Telesur, which is sponsored by leftist governments in South America.

A pro-Zelaya channel also was shut down.

The few television and radio stations still operating on Monday played tropical music or aired soap operas and cooking shows.

And I refrained from responding to pure hate-filled rants but posted this:

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.

Article 239 basically says ARTICLE 239 .- The citizen who has ownership of the executive branch may not be President or Vice President of the Republic.

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 (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública. Anyone who violates this provision or the proposed reform, and support those who directly or indirectly, immediately cease the discharge of their duties and shall be disqualified for ten (10) years to exercise any public function.
* Modificado por Decreto 299/1998. * Amended by Decree 299/1998.

But there is more to the Honduras constitution.

ARTICLE 1 .- Honduras is a rule of law, sovereign republic established as free, democratic and independent to ensure its people the enjoyment of justice, freedom, culture and economic and social welfare.

ARTICULO 2.- La Soberanía corresponde al Pueblo del cual emanan todos los Poderes del Estado que se ejercen por representación. ARTICLE 2 .- The sovereignty of the people from which emanate all the branches of government to be exercised by proxy.

La soberanía del Pueblo podrá también ejercerse de manera directa, a través del Plebiscito y el Referendo. Sovereignty of the People may also be exercised directly, through the referendum and the referendum.

La suplantación de la Soberanía Popular y la usurpación de los poderes constituidos se tipifican como delitos de Traición a la Patria. Impersonation of popular sovereignty and the usurpation of the constituted powers are defined as crimes of treason. La responsabilidad en estos casos es imprescriptible y podrá ser deducida de oficio oa petición de cualquier ciudadano. Liability in these cases is imprescriptible and may be deducted automatically or upon request by any citizen.

Article 2. Regarding the crime of treason is the one most cited by the right wing. But you'll notice it also seems to indicate direct referendum by the people legal.

The you have some more that seem to conflict with the military coup.

ARTICLE 3 .- No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to those who assume public office or employment by force of arms or by using means or procedures that violate or are unaware of what the Constitution and the laws. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. Verified by acts such authorities are zero. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional. the people have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of constitutional order.

This one is just funny-

ARTICLE 60 .- All men are born free and equal in rights. En Honduras no hay clases privilegiadas. In Honduras there are no privileged classes. Todos los hondureños son iguales ante la Ley. All Hondurans are equal before the law

And these seem to contradict each other....

ARTICLE 74 .- You can not restrict the right of expression of opinion by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls the material used for printing newspapers; of frequencies or equipment or apparatus used to disseminate information.

ARTICULO 75.- La Ley que regule la emisión del pensamiento, podrá establecer censura previa, para proteger los valores éticos y culturales de la sociedad, así como los derechos de las personas, especialmente de la infancia, de la adolescencia y de la juventud.

ARTICLE 75 .- The law governing the issuance of thought, may establish prior censorship to protect the ethical and cultural values of society and the rights of people, especially children, adolescents and youth.

Article 81:

Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.

Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in the national territory.

Also Article 102:

Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero.

No Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state.

There is certainly a conflict in the constitution, which should be no surprise to anyone.

So, the rest of the constitution is online and felt the need to respond to the screaming about article 239 and "No one has addressed the constitutional issues". To those-please read more carefully.

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.

There is also some language about the President as the Commander of the Armed Forces. And nothing about the Supreme Court's ability to order the armed forces. The act of the Congress that actually read a "letter of resignation" by the President is simply ridiculous. Why read a fake letter of resignation?

And last but not least...freedom of the press is important to me-or at least some degree. The mainstream press is getting their "news" from the only place they can-from the very same that ousted the president. Surely you can imagine it would be slanted. If his acts were illegal, there seem to be many choices besides a military coup and pajama arrest.

And jhyre says that The US Supreme Court's rulings that Bush administration acts were unconstitutional are irrelevant. perhaps they are but Jh, you have thrown out every name of left wing name you know in your "arguments". And associated especially me with Chavez etc(which is quite laughable). and I wouldn't put myself in the Obama lover/worshiper camp(that sort of crap always comes from the right) but in the "Way, way, way better than GW Bush" camp.

El Pueche-yes, I love your words and your stories. You are always worth reading and listening to as is TomBrad and so many others that know Chile and Latin America.

JohnHyre is not Honduran.
JohnHyre is not in Honduras.
JohnHyre has not ever been to Honduras.
JohnHyre does not know anyone from Honduras.
JohnHyre does not know anyone that has been to Honduras.

JohnHyre did not write the Honduran Constitiution.
JohnHyre is reading about the present Honduran situation and its constitution on the internet.
The media/press is reporting the Honduran situation on the internet as well as on TV and in print.

The internet is inaccurate. The media/press reports news and events with a slant according to the editorial direction of the publisher and therefore for as many media outlets as there are available, there will be as many views of an event.

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . I wouldn't put myself in the Obama lover/worshiper camp(that sort of crap always comes from the right) but in the "Way, way, way better than GW Bush" camp. . . .

Before you get carried away with scatological righteousness, Laura, remember that many of us are gathered around that campfire. (It may, however, be too soon to sit too close to the fire -- I see many there who cheered GWB in the autumn of 2001.)

Yeah, I saw many who cheered GWB in 2000/01. And also many who cheered Mr. Internet in 2000. I didn't cheer for either one of them. Heads or Tails. Take your pick.

I wonder what songs they sing around the camp fire? Probably not "Who'll stop the rain?". Maybe Sunshine Superman.

mlightheart wrote:Yeah, I saw many who cheered GWB in 2000/01. And also many who cheered Mr. Internet in 2000. I didn't cheer for either one of them. Heads or Tails. Take your pick.
I wonder what songs they sing around the camp fire? Probably not "Who'll stop the rain?". Maybe Sunshine Superman.

"Paint it Black", Rolling Stones in 2000, 2004, 2008....

I cheered Bush and still would still do so given who he ran against both times. Still, he was quite disappointing (for me personally, emphatically not talking about anyone else) on most topics outside of foreign policy/national security. Too tired of this Honduran topic to comment in detail today, likely to the relief of many. Maybe tomorrow, likely to the chagrin of many.

John Hyre