When state run media is shut down, it is not censorship. It is the promotion of more realistic journalism that will not be blindly in favor of the government! Use common sense people!
I'm going to go out on a limb and explain for the government of Honduras to the world (since they are a bit busy right now) why the media has been turned off (many were international stations.) The provision in a treaty that I can't remember the name of, I think the American Convention or some U.N. provision, gives nations the benefit of being able to suspend several freedoms in times of emergency. I am not making this up, this provision was explained in the Human Rights Watch letter to the U.N. regarding Honduras.
Now, it certainly is an emergency. The world refuses to aknowledge the government exists. However, might I suggest considering the tone the world has taken, and the way the media continues to call this a coup (which for all people, including Hondurans, will be a spark for revolt) and under such a condition they need to calm their people from rebelling based on a lie. Again, use common sense.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Hondurus and the World
Why the world was so quick to respond to Honduras when they are still failing with Iran's people being slaughtered, I don't know. However although I've proven the coup to not be a coup time and time again in previous posts, the reason for the unanimous global condemnation of this incident lacks a reason. The gut response is the world thinks it is a coup, and that would certainly lend to the ignorance of the world opinion. However, is it possible for a majority of the world, including the leader of the free world, Obama, to be that stupid? I prefer to be an optimist and think not.
So why? Honduras deployed troops to Iran for the invasion, a reason the world may dislike them. This was from a president before the current one, but may lend to the support of a long-shot return (using as many destabalizing time wasting methods possible) of Zelaya to the presidency. Then there is the withdrawal of their forces following the Madrid bombings, under a former president but still a sign of cowardice. In this they offended the world already. They offended those in favor of the war in Iraq and those against. I'm theorizing so don't shoot me.
Isreal and Taiwan and the opposition leader in Venezuela recognize the new president. The support ends there. Common sense for the legitimacy of a nation comes easier to nations who know what it feels like to have their own government, freedom, and nation and still not be recognized by China. They know Honduras is legitimate. They did not recognize Honduras becuase they want to form an alliance of unrecognized nations in the world. If this were the case Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and Sahrawi Democratic Republic would all recognize each other. This is not the case. Honduras' government is legitimate, but the world for some reason does not recognize them. Why? I still don't know.
A trade embargo has also been put in place by Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. The mystery for the U.S. response continues when the State Department, despite Obama's coup calling, will not list the action as a coup and thus cut off aid to the country.
Now the U.S. relations with Honduras are generally good. Very little trouble. Except when Zelaya withdrew our ambassador last year with Venezuela and others following Bolivia's accusation of our ambassadors actually working with the cartels to smuggle drugs (no evidence or charges were put forth or made.) So defending Zelaya makes no sense as that was an act of hostility. Why why why why why. Yes, I am confused. I look at it, and I know the truth, but the world is all wrong on this. I can't figure it out. What makes Zelaya so popular among all sides?
Why is Zelaya considered the good man in this? Why is he seen as the better option? It all comes down to why. He was removed with a reason, the why is explained there. The why for the world reaction is missing. Venezuela is simple: Zelaya was creating a regime similar to Chavez and in alliance with Chavez. Which makes Europe and America's responses confusing.
Would it not be better to allow the alliance that I speak of take the hit, and support the new government and have excellent relations while Chavez takes a loss? Zelaya has chosen his side and it is against us, so why do we think by supporting him that we will change the influence Chavez has on his leadership policies? I can't figure any of it out. If you can please tell me.
So why? Honduras deployed troops to Iran for the invasion, a reason the world may dislike them. This was from a president before the current one, but may lend to the support of a long-shot return (using as many destabalizing time wasting methods possible) of Zelaya to the presidency. Then there is the withdrawal of their forces following the Madrid bombings, under a former president but still a sign of cowardice. In this they offended the world already. They offended those in favor of the war in Iraq and those against. I'm theorizing so don't shoot me.
Isreal and Taiwan and the opposition leader in Venezuela recognize the new president. The support ends there. Common sense for the legitimacy of a nation comes easier to nations who know what it feels like to have their own government, freedom, and nation and still not be recognized by China. They know Honduras is legitimate. They did not recognize Honduras becuase they want to form an alliance of unrecognized nations in the world. If this were the case Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and Sahrawi Democratic Republic would all recognize each other. This is not the case. Honduras' government is legitimate, but the world for some reason does not recognize them. Why? I still don't know.
A trade embargo has also been put in place by Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. The mystery for the U.S. response continues when the State Department, despite Obama's coup calling, will not list the action as a coup and thus cut off aid to the country.
Now the U.S. relations with Honduras are generally good. Very little trouble. Except when Zelaya withdrew our ambassador last year with Venezuela and others following Bolivia's accusation of our ambassadors actually working with the cartels to smuggle drugs (no evidence or charges were put forth or made.) So defending Zelaya makes no sense as that was an act of hostility. Why why why why why. Yes, I am confused. I look at it, and I know the truth, but the world is all wrong on this. I can't figure it out. What makes Zelaya so popular among all sides?
Why is Zelaya considered the good man in this? Why is he seen as the better option? It all comes down to why. He was removed with a reason, the why is explained there. The why for the world reaction is missing. Venezuela is simple: Zelaya was creating a regime similar to Chavez and in alliance with Chavez. Which makes Europe and America's responses confusing.
Would it not be better to allow the alliance that I speak of take the hit, and support the new government and have excellent relations while Chavez takes a loss? Zelaya has chosen his side and it is against us, so why do we think by supporting him that we will change the influence Chavez has on his leadership policies? I can't figure any of it out. If you can please tell me.
Honduras FACT
The following article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
explains the situation of Honduras from the perspective of someone who knows Honduras a lot better than I do. This should be the final word on the issue of the legality of the removal of Zelaya. It is as follows:
Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.
It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.
Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
explains the situation of Honduras from the perspective of someone who knows Honduras a lot better than I do. This should be the final word on the issue of the legality of the removal of Zelaya. It is as follows:
Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.
It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.
Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Honduras' Congress approved a decree on Wednesday to crack down on opposition during a nightly curfew imposed after the recent coup.
Lets examine this sentence. After a coup the Honduran Congress approved a decree. The rest of the sentence doesn't really matter (unless you want the news tid bit.) The coup, with no military general in control, has allowed the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidential power structure to remain intact. Either this is the strangest and low-bar coup in history, or it isn't a coup!
Lets examine this sentence. After a coup the Honduran Congress approved a decree. The rest of the sentence doesn't really matter (unless you want the news tid bit.) The coup, with no military general in control, has allowed the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidential power structure to remain intact. Either this is the strangest and low-bar coup in history, or it isn't a coup!
The airing of grievances in society as a whole is nothing new. The solutions offered by some who do this differs greatly even if the complaints do not. As a whole the problems are known. The solutions are many, and it is the radical who uses violence as a solution.
The Coming Insurrection is a book. It was written by radicals. Most of the book is airing grievances. These are legitimate complaints against the world. There are solutions offered and this is where a social examination becomes a handbook for the worst of crimes against the innocent. It blames all in society, and demands their deaths by force. I am making it my mission to work through this book and analyze the source of the complaints, and the insanity of the solutions. I will disprove this book at every solution calling for violence or the destruction of society. They are not solutions but a controlling mechanism for the hatred they inspire with their stories of social injustice in today's world.
I am exposing, denouncing, and proving wrong this book so that those who have read it can come and regain their sanity and rejoin the real solutions. I am providing an alternative to the violence. Democracy is not dead, is not a revolving door and I will prove it to you.
For those who haven't read the book, you may think I'm crazy for even doing this. However right you may be, I have a reason. The book was written to spread an ideology and indeed it has. Europe has this book spreading like wildfire even though it is banned. The ideology is right there. I have the words before me. I condemn them yes, but I must fight the ideology with another ideology. That is why the Taliban have proven so successful, the grievances for the civilian deaths, regardless of who caused them, is harnessed and turned against us in America. The grievances stir emotion in this book and is guided towards the state in whatever form it takes. It calls, as Al Qaeda Jihad does, violence and the destruction of society.
Nobody else has written a counter ideology to these ideologies and as a social experiment and an attempt to stop the spread of these advocates for violence I will write the counter. Right here on my blog. Maybe I'm crazy and this is all just worthless, but I feel it is my obligation to try. Things are wrong in the world and they must be made right. This is just a small part of my effort to make it right.
The Coming Insurrection is a book. It was written by radicals. Most of the book is airing grievances. These are legitimate complaints against the world. There are solutions offered and this is where a social examination becomes a handbook for the worst of crimes against the innocent. It blames all in society, and demands their deaths by force. I am making it my mission to work through this book and analyze the source of the complaints, and the insanity of the solutions. I will disprove this book at every solution calling for violence or the destruction of society. They are not solutions but a controlling mechanism for the hatred they inspire with their stories of social injustice in today's world.
I am exposing, denouncing, and proving wrong this book so that those who have read it can come and regain their sanity and rejoin the real solutions. I am providing an alternative to the violence. Democracy is not dead, is not a revolving door and I will prove it to you.
For those who haven't read the book, you may think I'm crazy for even doing this. However right you may be, I have a reason. The book was written to spread an ideology and indeed it has. Europe has this book spreading like wildfire even though it is banned. The ideology is right there. I have the words before me. I condemn them yes, but I must fight the ideology with another ideology. That is why the Taliban have proven so successful, the grievances for the civilian deaths, regardless of who caused them, is harnessed and turned against us in America. The grievances stir emotion in this book and is guided towards the state in whatever form it takes. It calls, as Al Qaeda Jihad does, violence and the destruction of society.
Nobody else has written a counter ideology to these ideologies and as a social experiment and an attempt to stop the spread of these advocates for violence I will write the counter. Right here on my blog. Maybe I'm crazy and this is all just worthless, but I feel it is my obligation to try. Things are wrong in the world and they must be made right. This is just a small part of my effort to make it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
