tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post3922795092216517992..comments2023-09-12T01:15:08.356-07:00Comments on Honduras Coup 2009: A response to Micheletti's Op-ed in Sunday's Wall Street JournalRAJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-82352621858769434772009-07-28T12:04:37.179-07:002009-07-28T12:04:37.179-07:00First, because the order he carried out violated t...First, because the order he carried out violated the constitution. As Honduran legal scholars opposed to the regime note, legally the National Police would have that role. The Supreme Court accepted a scandalous claim that the police could not be trusted. So Romeo had no business, in his self- acclaimed role as defender of the constitution, accepting that order.<br /><br />Second, he did the wrong thing even given the order. He has yet to personally admit that. The military FAQ goes to grotesque lengths to justify the deportation, and the military and others hint that there were civilians who told them to deport the President.<br /><br />Third, the Supreme Court order is ambiguous: it calls for detention and taking a statement. It appears arresting a sitting President may not have been legal. (Still checking on this.)<br /><br />Finally: the Supreme Court order may not have existed in writing until after the fact. The Supreme Court's weird verbiage supports colleagues' claims that the order was written after the fact, because instead of saying "this was legal" (which I would still reject) they say "Assuming there was an order by a competent judge the events would have been for the best".<br /><br />My partner, who wrote the response in a rage at Micheletti, used arrest warrant for the judicial order: neither of us believe a valid order existed.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-38419269933060469892009-07-28T09:27:40.584-07:002009-07-28T09:27:40.584-07:00I'll look forward to seeing your translations....I'll look forward to seeing your translations. As I say, to the best of my ability to understand the conversation, Romeo Vasquez could not give a straight answer to Xiomara Castro de Zelaya's simple question about where was the arrest warrant. Why would that be the case if there had actually been an arrest warrant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-29649577325638181562009-07-27T23:00:31.916-07:002009-07-27T23:00:31.916-07:00The Supreme Court documents, as well as those post...The Supreme Court documents, as well as those posted by the Armed Forces in their hysterical attempt to justify themselves, both contain orders dated June 26 directed to specific officers. While many Honduran contacts of ours suggest these were post-facto creations, they remain the claimed legal basis for the actions of June 28. <br /><br />What these notes actually say is somewhat ambiguous; what is clear is they are not, as sometimes characterized, <b>rulings</b> or <b>sentences</b> by the Supreme Court. I still have found no findings by the court on any of the supposed crimes.<br /><br />For example, the version addressed to Romeo Vasquez Velasquez posted by the Armed Forces reads "By order of this Tribunal of Justice of the Honduran Republic...this serves to convey the authority that you may delegate to capture the Citizen President of the Republic of Honduras...who is supposed to be responsible for the crimes: against the form of government, treason against the homeland, abuse of authority and usurpation of functions, prejudicing the Public Administration of the State of Honduras, the preceding based on the legal filing presented in this Court by the Ministerio Publico."<br /><br />The Supreme Court's own postings, which I continue to work on mining, translating, and hope soon to begin posting, explicitly authorize a raid by the Armed Forces, to detain the President and take a statement.<br /><br />These are the documents that can be described as arrest warrants. Of course, it was only after the Congress declared President Zelaya removed from office-- despite the lack of any legal means for the Congress to do such a thing-- that the Supreme Court issued an order for arrest, based on the argument that he was no longer President and thus not subject to special treatment otherwise afforded to high government officials.<br /><br />Romeo Vasquez, in the Radio Globo interview, in another with BBC that we will be posting about soon, and insofar as he is behind some of the Armed Forces press releases, is clearly trying to avoid acknowledging that there were serious legal defects in the Supreme Court orders he enacted.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-91016745749358832642009-07-27T20:09:53.455-07:002009-07-27T20:09:53.455-07:00Was there an arrest order? I thoughy Dona Xiomara&...Was there an arrest order? I thoughy Dona Xiomara's exchange with Romeo Vasquez pretty well dispelled that idea. There was an authorization, but the order to arrest seems to be a matter of speculation.<br /><br />--Charles of MercuryRising<br />www.phoenixwoman.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com