[Peace-discuss] State Department Terminates Aid to Honduras Coup Regime

[Ricky Baldwin]

Yes indeed.
 
Is it "non-intervention" to let our dogs off the leash?

Ricky

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:


From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] State Department Terminates Aid to Honduras Coup Regime
To: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 10:35 AM


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> Isn't the most appropriate response of the US a cessation of military
> activity in the region and a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Yes, indeed. Plus immediate withdrawal of all US military and CIA, and a cessation of SOA training and all "aid," military and non-military.  Substantial US economic and development aid should be channeled through the UN so that the US cannot use it for praise or blame.

Since Honduras was the pretty thoroughly colonized hub of the US contra war, it's been deeply impacted by the USG, which was undoubtedly aware of the upcoming coup.


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> Whether or not Honduras has an impeachment provision seems to be a matter of semiotics.  It appears that the Congress decided to remove Zelaya and the Supreme Court ordered him removed, the "equivalent" to impeachment and removal.
> 
>> Congress voted to remove him for what it called "repeated violations of the
>>  constitution and the law", and the Supreme Court said it had ordered the president to be removed from office to protect law and order.
> Here's the link to the BBC page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8124154.stm
> 
> 
> Honduras apparently has a provision for action under duress, so the coup is not exactly "illegal".
>> Article 24 of Honduras' penal code will exonerate the joint chiefs of staff
>>  who made the decision, because it allows for making tough decisions based on the good of the state, Inestroza said.
> But, My Original question was "Why are we meddling with the affairs of Honduras, a sovereign state?"
> 
> Should China impose monetary policy sanctions on the US because Mr. Obama has
>  proposed illegal detention of dissidents, or because Obama has continued Bush's unconstitutional activities, or because the US is in the process of escalating its occupation of Afghanistan?  Jimmy Carter told us that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was so immoral that Amerikans ought to starve the Soviets into submission. Carter instituted a grain embargo that devastated the American Farmer.  How can we be on the moral high ground in Afghanistan while the Soviets were scoundrels for doing nothing worse than what we are doing?
> 
> Isn't the most appropriate response of the US a cessation of military activity in the region and a non-interventionist foreign policy?
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2009 8:22 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> The Honduran Congress never "impeached" President Zelaya. There is no impeachment provision in the Honduran Constitution.
>> 
>> The top legal adviser to the Honduran military admitted that the Honduran military broke the law:
>> 
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html
>> 
>> Do you have a link to that BBC story?
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM, E. Wayne Johnson<ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>> 
>>> The BBC reports:
>>> 
>>> Tension had been brewing in Honduras over recent months. Mr Zelaya sacked
>>>  the head of the armed forces, who refused to give logistical support for
>>>  the 28 June vote. The Supreme Court overruled him, saying the army chief
>>>  should be reinstated.
>>> 
>>> When Mr Zelaya insisted the consultation would go ahead,
>>> 
>>> Since Honduras's own Congress has IMPEACHED and voted to Remove Zelaya, and the Honduras's own Supreme Court has ordered Zelaya's removal, How is
>>>  it that Anyone could say that his removal is Illegal, since it would appear that Due Process and the Rule of Law is being followed?
>>> 
>>> On 9/4/2009 7:36 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course I am pleased that the US is terminating its "aid" to Honduras.
>>>  Honduras should be glad too.  Amerika's jelly beans have fishhooks in them.
>>> 
>>> What business does the United States have interfering with the conduct of
>>>  government in Honduras, a sovereign state?
>>> 
>>> The American battle for independence from the bloody British was an illegal coup. We have a military base in Honduras. Why shouldn't they throw us out of there if they could?
>>> 
>>> How is our meddling with Honduras not an act of aggression against a weak
>>>  sovereign nation? How is it any different from what we are doing in Iraq
>>>  and Afghanistan?
>>> 
>>> It appears that the initiating spark in Honduras is an insistance on violation of term limits by the now-ousted President. What is it that we like about that?
>>> 
>>> Is the US on the wrong side of the fight?  (once again?)

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090904/3af7cca8/attachment.html