But that does not mean we have to accept the publication of lies. Here, for the record, is a point-by-point rebuttal, a comment posted in response to the WSJ by an associate of this blog:
Undisputed facts, Mr. Micheletti? I don't think so. Lets look at
them one by one.
- The Supreme Court Arrest Order. You say the Honduran Military
was the appropriate agency under Honduran law. The constitution of
Honduras does not list the execution of arrest warrents under the
description of functions of the Military. That duty falls, under its
founding law (on the National Congress website) to the National
Police, not the Miltary. Also it was an arrest order, not a trial.
Mr. Zelaya has been denied due process under the Honduran
constitution. I might also point out that it is illegal under the
Honduran Constitution to forcibly exile a citizen of Honduras, as you
have done with Mr. Zelaya.
- The Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr.
Zelaya. Congress was convened in an unusual manner, where not all
representatives were notified of the meeting, and in some cases,
people unknown to the representatives substituted for them without
their permission. Representatives of the UD party were prevented by
armed guards from attending the session. Voting was done by a show
of hands, not an actual roll call vote. Also, the vote doesn't
matter since the Honduran constituion contains no method for the
National Congress to remove a sitting president. Congress cannot
remove the president. You modified the constituion to make that
impossible a few years ago.
- Constitution Article 239. There is no evidence in the form of
public statements, printed anywhere, including in the Honduran
newspapers that support you, that quotes Mr. Zelaya as ever saying
that he was seeking to extend his term of office. In fact, this is
entirely your supposition, without any supporting evidence.
Therefore article 239 does not apply, unless you can show words and
actions that show he tried to extend his term. Might I also point
out that you were a signer of a 1985 attempt to call a National
Constituent Assembly specifically to extend the term of President
Suazo Cordova, and when given a chance to withdraw your support of
the bill, you declined.
- Illegal withdrawal of money from the Banco Central of Honduras.
These are allegations that remain to be proved; Your prosecutors are
hardly impartial sources of information.
- Seizure of the ballots and their source. Mr. Zelaya led a peaceful
mob. The Airforce base commander never felt threatened and talked
both with Mr. Zelaya, his legal commander, and quite naturally turned
the ballots over to him when asked for them. The ballots were
printed in Venezuela, but were not shipped by the Venezuelan government.
- Legal succession to president. Elvin Santos, vice president under
Mr. Zelaya, was allowed to resign as Vice President. The process was
unconstituional, as you know. Your own human rights commissioner,
Mr. Custodio said so. Also, as stated above, Congress cannot remove
a President according to the Honduran Constituion, so any succession
authorized by Congress was based on the lie of the legal removal of
Mr. Zelaya. Don't take my word for it, study Honduran constitutional
scholar's Efrain Moncada Silva's opinion.
- expulsion of Mr. Zelaya from Honduras. Everyone, including
military's chief lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, agrees
this was an illegal act, and your fear of mobs does not justify
violating the constitution you claim to be supporting. Forcing Mr.
Zelaya into exile was a violation of your constitution, an illegal
act, in which you participated.