[1] He NEVER mentioned reelection. NEVER.
[2] It wasn't a referendum. It was an opinion survey. It had no official function of any kind. It was a question about how people would feel about putting a hypothetical question on the November ballot.
[3] Neither the Supreme Court or congress has any constitutional authority to remove a sitting president. Article 239 does say that anyone who proposes reelection extending the presidential term ceases functioning as president. It does not establish any procedure for enforcing this.
[4] The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 in its order, although it is festooned with other constitutional and legal references. It ordered the army to arrest Zelaya and bring him before a magistrate. The army ignored the order and illegally deported him instead. They also forged a letter of resignation and claimed he was resigning for reasons of health. This was probably a polite way of saying that health can be harmed by a bullet to the back of the head.
[5] Zelaya had full legal and constitutional authority to fire the army chief of staff.
[6] Competent legal experts in Honduran constitution law argue that Zelaya never technically violated the injunctions against distributing the opinion survey because the decree by Congress had never been published in the official government gazette and therefore was not effective, and also because it did not apply to an opinion survey (not mentioned in the decree) but a referendum (specifically mentioned).
[7] The computers were probably being set up to tabulate the opinion survey, not a trivial process for millions of votes.
a. This had to be done from scratch by technicians from project 'Learn' of the Honduran Council on Science and technology aimed at rural schools because the National Research Institute had declined to tabulate the poll.
b. The government investigator produced exactly one tabulation with admittedly absurd figures, which would lead any sane observer to conclude that they were dummy figures.
c. Why would technicians carrying out a slick fraud make up more voters than existed in a well-known town? Because they weren't carrying out a slick fraud. They were making up stuff to see how the tabulation system worked. The "incriminating" evidence was a document with header information "Test spreadsheet." Yep. That's prima facie evidence of fraud right there. Think of it. A test spread sheet. Bad stuff. Very bad stuff. I mean it was probably Excel. How much more evil can it get than that?
[8] Zelaya had absolutely nothing to gain personally from the proposed constitutional convention because:
a. It would take place long after he was out of office.
b. It could not even raise the topic of reelection because the old constitution forbidding that would still be in force.
[9] The issues that were going to be raised at the proposed constitutional convention had to with long-standing sore points such as land tenure by indigenous peoples, military immunity from prosecution, broadening the people's role in Honduran democracy and other topics.
You can read my full report on the controversy on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-supreme-court-it_b_230621.html
Now all who come after me in this thread are hereby enjoined from repeating the totally discredited claims under threat of maximum punishment that shall be carried out by the competent authorities without let or mercy or further review.
SO LET IT BE WRITTEN. SO LET IT BE DONE.
Slashdot Mirror
[1] He NEVER mentioned reelection. NEVER. [2] It wasn't a referendum. It was an opinion survey. It had no official function of any kind. It was a question about how people would feel about putting a hypothetical question on the November ballot. [3] Neither the Supreme Court or congress has any constitutional authority to remove a sitting president. Article 239 does say that anyone who proposes reelection extending the presidential term ceases functioning as president. It does not establish any procedure for enforcing this. [4] The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 in its order, although it is festooned with other constitutional and legal references. It ordered the army to arrest Zelaya and bring him before a magistrate. The army ignored the order and illegally deported him instead. They also forged a letter of resignation and claimed he was resigning for reasons of health. This was probably a polite way of saying that health can be harmed by a bullet to the back of the head. [5] Zelaya had full legal and constitutional authority to fire the army chief of staff. [6] Competent legal experts in Honduran constitution law argue that Zelaya never technically violated the injunctions against distributing the opinion survey because the decree by Congress had never been published in the official government gazette and therefore was not effective, and also because it did not apply to an opinion survey (not mentioned in the decree) but a referendum (specifically mentioned). [7] The computers were probably being set up to tabulate the opinion survey, not a trivial process for millions of votes. a. This had to be done from scratch by technicians from project 'Learn' of the Honduran Council on Science and technology aimed at rural schools because the National Research Institute had declined to tabulate the poll. b. The government investigator produced exactly one tabulation with admittedly absurd figures, which would lead any sane observer to conclude that they were dummy figures. c. Why would technicians carrying out a slick fraud make up more voters than existed in a well-known town? Because they weren't carrying out a slick fraud. They were making up stuff to see how the tabulation system worked. The "incriminating" evidence was a document with header information "Test spreadsheet." Yep. That's prima facie evidence of fraud right there. Think of it. A test spread sheet. Bad stuff. Very bad stuff. I mean it was probably Excel. How much more evil can it get than that? [8] Zelaya had absolutely nothing to gain personally from the proposed constitutional convention because: a. It would take place long after he was out of office. b. It could not even raise the topic of reelection because the old constitution forbidding that would still be in force. [9] The issues that were going to be raised at the proposed constitutional convention had to with long-standing sore points such as land tenure by indigenous peoples, military immunity from prosecution, broadening the people's role in Honduran democracy and other topics. You can read my full report on the controversy on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-supreme-court-it_b_230621.html Now all who come after me in this thread are hereby enjoined from repeating the totally discredited claims under threat of maximum punishment that shall be carried out by the competent authorities without let or mercy or further review. SO LET IT BE WRITTEN. SO LET IT BE DONE.
Please read the Palast article. There have been official investigations into the fraud, principally by the Civil Rights Commission.
It's easy to sneer. Spend a little time reviewing the facts. They are very chilling.