"Coup d'etat" in Honduras

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obama's administration couldnt be more in the wrong on their stance.

Yeah they could have, they could have backed th Coup.

Wrong, read the article. The Hondura's constitution explicitly states what Zelaya did was grounds for removal from office. Obama's administration demanding they break their own constitution is as assbackwards as it gets.

Ahem

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

Why don't you quote the rest of it? Genx quoted in entirety, you are cherry picking. Exile probably was incorrect, but even if he returns, he will be sentenced and jailed because he broke the law. And not only that, but he committed treason.

Actually, exile, while technically may have been wrong, it could have been for the best to avoid rioting or worse.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obama's administration couldnt be more in the wrong on their stance.

Yeah they could have, they could have backed th Coup.

Wrong, read the article. The Hondura's constitution explicitly states what Zelaya did was grounds for removal from office. Obama's administration demanding they break their own constitution is as assbackwards as it gets.

Ahem

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

Why don't you quote the rest of it? Genx quoted in entirety, you are cherry picking. Exile probably was incorrect, but even if he returns, he will be sentenced and jailed because he broke the law. And not only that, but he committed treason.

Actually, exile, while technically may have been wrong, it could have been for the best to avoid rioting or worse.

So they circumvent the law to prevent rioting? If what he did was against the law he should be tried and if found guilty face the appropriate sentence.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obama's administration couldnt be more in the wrong on their stance.

Yeah they could have, they could have backed th Coup.

Wrong, read the article. The Hondura's constitution explicitly states what Zelaya did was grounds for removal from office. Obama's administration demanding they break their own constitution is as assbackwards as it gets.

Ahem

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

Why don't you quote the rest of it? Genx quoted in entirety, you are cherry picking. Exile probably was incorrect, but even if he returns, he will be sentenced and jailed because he broke the law. And not only that, but he committed treason.

Actually, exile, while technically may have been wrong, it could have been for the best to avoid rioting or worse.

So they circumvent the law to prevent rioting? If what he did was against the law he should be tried and if found guilty face the appropriate sentence.

There are no "ifs" about his treason. The question now is what should the punishment be? Perhaps exile is best. But that is up to Honduran law and so far, the Honduran authorities, not withstanding interference from the US, has been doing a great job in protecting its constitution.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obama's administration couldnt be more in the wrong on their stance.

Yeah they could have, they could have backed th Coup.

Wrong, read the article. The Hondura's constitution explicitly states what Zelaya did was grounds for removal from office. Obama's administration demanding they break their own constitution is as assbackwards as it gets.

Ahem

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

Why don't you quote the rest of it? Genx quoted in entirety, you are cherry picking. Exile probably was incorrect, but even if he returns, he will be sentenced and jailed because he broke the law. And not only that, but he committed treason.

Actually, exile, while technically may have been wrong, it could have been for the best to avoid rioting or worse.

So they circumvent the law to prevent rioting? If what he did was against the law he should be tried and if found guilty face the appropriate sentence.

There are no "ifs" about his treason. The question now is what should the punishment be? Perhaps exile is best. But that is up to Honduran law and so far, the Honduran authorities, not withstanding interference from the US, has been doing a great job in protecting its constitution.

Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

What part of the below do you need help comprehending?

"It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left)."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

What part of the below do you need help comprehending?

"It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left)."

You agree that exiling him was illegal but then you say i what they did was legal? I think you are the one with a comprehension problem.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obama's administration couldnt be more in the wrong on their stance.

Yeah they could have, they could have backed th Coup.

Wrong, read the article. The Hondura's constitution explicitly states what Zelaya did was grounds for removal from office. Obama's administration demanding they break their own constitution is as assbackwards as it gets.

Ahem

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

Why don't you quote the rest of it? Genx quoted in entirety, you are cherry picking. Exile probably was incorrect, but even if he returns, he will be sentenced and jailed because he broke the law. And not only that, but he committed treason.

Actually, exile, while technically may have been wrong, it could have been for the best to avoid rioting or worse.

So they circumvent the law to prevent rioting? If what he did was against the law he should be tried and if found guilty face the appropriate sentence.

There are no "ifs" about his treason. The question now is what should the punishment be? Perhaps exile is best. But that is up to Honduran law and so far, the Honduran authorities, not withstanding interference from the US, has been doing a great job in protecting its constitution.

Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

The only questionable act was moving him to Costa Rica. The rest of the process which is really the meat of the entire story was entirely legal.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

The only questionable act was moving him to Costa Rica. The rest of the process which is really the meat of the entire story was entirely legal.

Exactly. The key point Red is not understanding.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

The only questionable act was moving him to Costa Rica. The rest of the process which is really the meat of the entire story was entirely legal.

Exactly. The key point Red is not understanding.

No the key point you aren't understanding is that when you circumvent the rule of law the whole process becomes flawed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

The only questionable act was moving him to Costa Rica. The rest of the process which is really the meat of the entire story was entirely legal.

Exactly. The key point Red is not understanding.

No the key point you aren't understanding is that when you circumvent the rule of law the whole process becomes flawed.

They held a trial in congress the day after he was exiled. His own party convicted him. You are really going on a limb to claim because they exiled him the whole process is flawed. That part of the process was flawed but that doesnt change anything else that happened. And it wont get him back into power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Even if they are going about it illegally?:roll:

The only questionable act was moving him to Costa Rica. The rest of the process which is really the meat of the entire story was entirely legal.

Exactly. The key point Red is not understanding.

No the key point you aren't understanding is that when you circumvent the rule of law the whole process becomes flawed.

They held a trial in congress the day after he was exiled. His own party convicted him. You are really going on a limb to claim because they exiled him the whole process is flawed. That part of the process was flawed but that doesnt change anything else that happened. And it wont get him back into power.

I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor. And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

They already had a trial before he was exiled

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to nface his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitutidon and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We havle no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying uhim with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposingo him into exile with a Coup .

They already had a trial on the evidence of the charges before he was exiled. That is why their Supreme Court was involved - to determine the legitamcy of the charges.

Their system is not ours and should not be evaluated as such

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor. And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

I couldn't give a shit about his political leanings, he was elected by the people and he needed to be tried and not by some Kangaroo court.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor. And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

I couldn't give a shit about his political leanings, he was elected by the people and he needed to be tried and not by some Kangaroo court.

Actually you really do. And the kangaroo court you speak of was the Honduran duly elected representatives convened IAW their Constitution and affirmed by their Supreme Court.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor. And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

I couldn't give a shit about his political leanings, he was elected by the people and he needed to be tried and not by some Kangaroo court.

Actually you really do. And the kangaroo court you speak of was the Honduran duly elected representatives convened IAW their Constitution and affirmed by their Supreme Court.

How so, I said if he was doing what they accused him of doing, and the evidence is overwhelming it seems that he was, he should be be tried and if convicted removed from office and sentenced, not whisked out of the country Banana Republic style.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say? It says it right there. He broke the consitution and immediately ceased to remain president.

Namecalling only further erodes your already weak position. Obama looks more Reagan than me. I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

No they have followed their constitution by trying him with him present to face his accusers and to defend himself instead of deposing him into exile with a Coup .

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor. And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

I couldn't give a shit about his political leanings, he was elected by the people and he needed to be tried and not by some Kangaroo court.

Actually you really do. And the kangaroo court you speak of was the Honduran duly elected representatives convened IAW their Constitution and affirmed by their Supreme Court.

How so, I said if he was doing what they accused him of doing, and the evidence is overwhelming it seems that he was, he should be be tried and if convicted removed from office and sentenced, not whisked out of the country Banana Republic style.

Their country has their rules. No one has shown that those rulse were not followed.
It is that those rules may not jive with the US sense of fair play.

What is being asked by those observers is that additional options that do not exist be granted to him to satisfy a sense of fair play.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How so, I said if he was doing what they accused him of doing, and the evidence is overwhelming it seems that he was, he should be be tried and if convicted removed from office and sentenced, not whisked out of the country Banana Republic style.

Their country has their rules. No one has shown that those rulse were not followed.
It is that those rules may not jive with the US sense of fair play.

What is being asked by those observers is that additional options that do not exist be granted to him to satisfy a sense of fair play.

So if those rules don't jive with out sense of fair play we should ignore it? I guess you were OK with Tienanmen Square.

Edit: Of course I know you weren't but that was a case of a Countries rule that doesn't jive with our sense of fair play.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dphantom

There are no "ifs" about his treason.

Yes, there are.

1. Did his simply wanting to *ask the opinion of the voters* - he never put up a ballot to actually change the law - meet the standard for 'treason' under the constitution?

2. Was there a trial for his treason, due process, even if he was 'guilty'?

3. What is the process under the constitution for the determination of violating the constitution, and for the removal of the President from office? Does the constitutio mention the Attorney General having the Supreme Court issues arrest orders, much less 'fly him out of the country'?

4. Is arrest the constitutional process, or just removal from office? Where does the constitution authorize the actions that happened, other than removal from office?

Does 'treason' in the constitution have any penalty other than removal from office? Any jail time? If not, what's the justification for arrest?

The question now is what should the punishment be?

Yes, you have shown zero interest in what the law says the punishment is.

Perhaps exile is best. But that is up to Honduran law and so far, the Honduran authorities, not withstanding interference from the US, has been doing a great job in protecting its constitution.

By possibly taking actions for the removal of the president not authorized by the constitution, by 'apparently illegally' flying him out of the country, they're doing a great job at respecting the constitution? You might well be able to defend, as I have, that his ignoring the Supreme Court order not to ask the public their opinion, whether right or wrong, was illegal. That the question of whether asking their opinion is a violation of 'attempting to change the constitution' can be raised in court in a trial.

But you are the one ignoring the constitution in areas.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87


They held a trial in congress the day after he was exiled. His own party convicted him.

They held a vote, not a trial. Was he there? Did he have attorneys representing his interests, in a fair trial? You ignore the political situation.

Does the constitution even have a process for such a vote?

You don't know, but you are willing to jump upo and down and say it was legal.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't care if he gets back into power, in fact if he was guilty he shouldn't be but he should at least have the ability to face his accusers and defend himself, the Coup made sure that didn't happen. Of course I understand why you Banana Republicans don't care about shit like this , I guess old habits back ifrm the days of Reagan are hard to kick.

The constitution required he be removed. What do you want me to say?

What the process is in the constitution for determining whether he is guilty and the process for removal from office.

I want to stay out of their internal politics. We have no right to tell them to break their own constitution.

You oppose, then, the Reagan/Bush policies of interference in those nations from backing death squads in El Salvador to Contras to try to force Nicaraguans to vote out Ortega to the backing of the coup in 2002 to remove the elected President of Venezuela to interference in other countries' elections and internal affairs - right? Or are you only opposed to it when it helps a liberal president?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87


They held a trial in congress the day after he was exiled. His own party convicted him.

They held a vote, not a trial. Was he there? Did he have attorneys representing his interests, in a fair trial? You ignore the political situation.

Does the constitution even have a process for such a vote?

You don't know, but you are willing to jump upo and down and say it was legal.

Actually I bet he really doesn't give a shit as Honduras is just a shithole that really doesn't matter, it's just a chance for him and his ilk to try and demonize the new Administrations Foreign Policy, one that's a breath of fresh air from the way the Republicans use to do it. You know, invading Sovereign nations, supporting Tin Pot Dictators, funding terrorists that have no qualm about killing children and Nuns and making a profit out of it by dealing with our sworn enemies by selling them arms to support our illegal meddling.