Comments on: Has Chavez Quit on Zelaya?

By: Dan Miller

Dan Miller — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:06:51 +0000

The phrase “international law” has often struck me as an oxymoron. Without an effective enforcement mechanism, laws are meaningless to those who decide not to abide by them. North Korea, Iran and many other countries certainly appear to think so.

If there is no sheriff or other police force, if I think it’s OK to steal chickens to feed my family, and if nobody I care about disagrees, then I guess I can steal chickens with impunity — unless the owner of the chickens or somebody else decides to “take the law into his own hands” and shoots me.

In any event, since Honduras resigned from, and was then was suspended by, the OAS (which it had joined under former President Zelaya), what the OAS says probably does not, and should not, matter unless Honduras thinks it should. Other than its various sanctions and the PR significance of its rhetoric, the OAS has no real power. If Honduras wants to assert its sovereign independence, isn’t much bothered by sanctions, and doesn’t care about adverse publicity, and if no other country intervenes with force, then it is (and should be) up to Honduras.

By: robotech master

robotech master — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:08:00 +0000

To 64. Pat J

I would suggest you review the OAS charter and international law…. the OAS has as much power to make the “coup” in Honduras as the girl scouts of American does…

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:22:22 +0000

64. Pat J wrote:
In addition the treaty I mentioned above was signed by Honduras and trumps the coup making it inllegal under international law.

Peter writes: I’ll type this slowly so even Pat can understand…

There…
was…
no…
coup…

The government of Honduras follwed the law as it is written in the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya BROKE the law by trying to change term limits. The HONDURAN Constitution states he can be removed from office for trying to do such, he was removed, the removal was and remains legal.

Again, repeat after me…

There…
was…
no…
coup!

By: Pat J

Pat J — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:34:50 +0000

57. Peter the Bubblehead:
—————–
The OAS does not back Cuba. It is technically a member but the OAS rejects Cuba’s Marxist dictatorship as inncompatible with the organization’s mission.

In addition the treaty I mentioned above was signed by Honduras and trumps the coup making it inllegal under international law.

By: arthur

arthur — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:05:47 +0000

Venezuelan President Chávez is a democratically elected leader, yet the western media continues to print propaganda about him, and the sheep believe it all. that’s not to say he is w/out flaw, but who is, after all eve Reagan sold arms to Iran. its all about oil and money.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:06:22 +0000

55. Pat J wrote:
So if it wasn’t a coup, why didn’t their Congress and Supreme Court go ahead and insist on impeachment proceedings?

Peter asks: Whose constitution are you saying they should use? Ours or the Hondurans?

While impeachment may be the best option according to the US CONSTITUTION, the HONDURAN CONSTITUTION states that if a president tries to extend his administration beyond proscribed term limits, they are to be removed from office immediately.

By: annie

annie — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:49:18 +0000

the answer to the question is a resounding “NO”…he’s and Bo are just layin’ low…

By: Ana Kippenbrock

Ana Kippenbrock — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:28:30 +0000

The Honduran Constitution does not contemplace impeachment.

By: Ana Kippenbrock

Ana Kippenbrock — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:25:42 +0000

There is word from Honduras that it has been recently confirmed that there is oil in commercial amounts in the northern coast of Honduras. If that is true, it makes perfect sense that Zelaya and Hugo Chávez so desesperately want to control Honduras. If Chávez can control Honduras, it will be easy for him to control the rest of the democratic Central American countries.

By: robotech master

robotech master — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:22:36 +0000

To 55. Pat J

Ummm you understand that impeachment proceedings were followed and that the military acted under those proceedings?

I’m always amazed by ppl who don’t know the first thing about law or understand that each country HAS DIFFERENT LAWS, PROCEDURES AND A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES.

The military could have shoot him on the spot and if the law says they can then thats following the procedures… ppl seems to think that you have to have 8 years of hearings and other BS… even in the US impeachment can take hours… maybe even minutes depending on the issue….

You also don’t need to impeach even in the US to remove a sitting “president”….