Monday, July 6, 2009

Should Obama be condemned for violating Honduran law?

As I noted in my previous post, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday issued a statement saying the US "deplores the use of force against demonstrators in" Honduras. He then added, "We're very focused on the need for a dialog to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office and restore the democratic order."

It has also been reported that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with the former dictator [Mr. Zelaya] on Tuesday.

Of course, as I noted previously, Ian Kelly, in typical hypocritical fashion, refused to condemn [deplore] the brutal suppression of protesters in Iran [during a press conference last month].

Nevertheless, there are some additional questions that need to be addressed:

Where was the Obama administration on March 23 when Manuel Zelaya issued a presidential decree calling for a national referendum, in violation of Honduras' constitution? [scroll down for video] The Attorney General of Honduras, the Supreme Court and the supreme electoral tribunal all declared the intended referendum illegal. Dozens of national institutions and associations joined in condemning the proposed referendum as unconstitutional. Why was there was no condemnation at the time from the Obama administration? And why didn't the administration intervene and try to block Mr. Zelaya from illegally holding on to power?

On June 25, Manuel Zelaya issued a second decree calling for a survey, which was also illegal. On the same day, the Supreme electoral tribunal and the Attorney General confiscated the ballots, but Zelaya and his thugs broke into the warehouse and seized the ballots by force. Why didn't the Obama administration issue a condemnation then?

The Honduran constitution explicitly states that any president who attempts to serve more than his allotted term shall immediately be removed from office [for a period of 10 years]. Honduran constitution does not provide for a process of impeachment, consequently, Mr. Zelaya was removed from his post. - h/t - Honduras Sprouts

The Obama administration refused to condemn Mr. Zelaya's illegal referendum and did nothing to prevent him from illegally extending his term in office.

Instead, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly now asserts that the administration is "very focused on the need... to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office," despite the fact that this would be in violation of Honduras' constitution.

Thus, the question arises: Should Obama and his minions be condemned for attempting to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office, in violation of Honduran law?

I don't see why not.

Admittedly, Mr. Kelly did say that he wishes to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office by means of a dialog. But bear in mind that Mr. Zelaya violated his country's constitution, and according to Honduran law he must be removed from office for at least 10 years. Hence, I believe the administration is attempting to skirt Honduran law and is thus, deserving of a scathing condemnation.

Article 239 - Honduran constitution:
No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Sen. DeMint, Rep.Ros-Lehtinen, the ball is in your court, how about a congressional condemnation, please?

US Senate, contact information
US congress, contact information

Request condemnation.....

No comments: