No amnesty for you
The Honduran Supreme Court issued a nine-point statement about the San José Accord, the most important of which is the assertion that Zelaya cannot have an amnesty.
It is a rather surreal read, as it emphasizes the need for rule of law and respect for the constitution, without acknowledging that illegal and unconstitutional acts are what brought the ire of the international community in the first place.
Now, the court is essentially arguing for the status quo ante, while pretending that forced removal from office, exile, human rights abuses, etc., etc. after June 28 never happened.
Days since the coup: 56
Days until the scheduled presidential election: 98
Update: the indispensable RAJ has detailed discussion and translation.
19 comments:
Once the Supreme Court rules, that's it. You can argue all you want that the ruling is wrong but everyone has to respect it.
That's how it works in the United States (Bush v Gore) and the same applies to Honduras.
But somehow I suspect Zelaya supporters will continue to argue that the only institution that matters in Honduras is the presidency.
The Honduran Supreme Court has not ruled on any of the charges of June 26. Continuing to claim that it has reached a verdict is either deliberate promotion of propaganda or ignorance of how the legal system actually works.
While the Supreme Court in its comments on the San Jose Accord does not endorse amnesty, it also does not reject amnesty. What is does is restate its previous position that there is an open legal case that would have to be continued.
This is the case that you presumably are claiming reached a conclusion in your comparison to Bush v. Gore, which in addition to being a case under a completely different system of law, dealt with the outcome of a legally held election, not the kidnapping of one of the candidates by the army. This talking point comes right from the Honduran Armed Forces and you probably should drop it if you wish to be taken seriously.
And of course, the Honduran Supreme Court has not ruled in the case against Zelaya, which is what their statement actually says. One justice had been appointed, as required by legal process, to investigate the charges. Investigation precedes hearings and trials, in which the accused is able to defend himself with actual evidence. The verdict could as easily be not guilty as the one you presume; indeed, any rational review of the charges (including those by many Honduran constitutional law professors) suggests this outcome. Accusing people of scary-sounding things is not law, it is intimidation.
The Honduran legal code incorporates the presumption of innocence. If you were actually defending the rule of law, you would accept that principle, which means President Zelaya must be presumed innocent of the charges against him.
The only person I have seen arguing that there is only one important institution in Honduras is you, with your drumbeat of insistence on the supremacy of the Supreme Court. You should read the court's own statement, which reiterates that none of three branches of government has supremacy. The way it is supposed to work is a system of legal checks and balances; charges and trials, not charges and expatriation.
And of course, the actual power of the military has increased so far in the present situation that they are being elevated by the national congress to the position of sole guarantor of the right to vote. It is thus worthwhile noting that the Supreme Court, despite mainly avoiding saying anything in its statement, makes one very clear point about the military: they are legally under the command of the President. They are not a separate branch of government. They are not supposed to be deciding who to obey, or coming up with reasons to justify illegal actions. That is what the Constitution means when it says they are a "non-deliberative" entity.
Think about it. On June 28, the Armed Forces disobeyed the authority the Supreme Court recognizes as their commanding officer, the legal President of the country. Even the unconstitutional vote to remove President Zelaya from office had not taken place yet. The military decided what to do on its own. The military is being treated as if it were a fourth branch of government.
As a defender of freedom why are you not concerned about that, and about the documented human rights abuses by the military that have followed?
Fine by me. Zelaya should be tried in court. Will he willingly and peacefully turn himself in and accept the verdict without pushing his supporters to storm his jail or court? I sincerely doubt it but am willing to be proven wrong.
Maybe you forgot RAJ but there have been other judicial rulings, very clear ones at that, final ones in fact, that Zelaya openly ignored and defied. For example when he stormed the military base to steal the ballots the judiciary had ordered confiscated. I know you came up with some novel legal arguments to support Zelaya's actoins but, unfortunately for Zelaya, they carry no weight in Honduras.
If you want to argue that Zelaya was denied his day in court I will fully agree with you. That means, of course, you need to accept the legitimacy of the other institutions, including the ones that have outstanding arrest warrants for Zelaya. I've read a lot, but not all, of what you've written and I've never seen anything like that posted by you. Or Greg here.
So my conclusion rests on strong empirical grounds. Zelaya supporters simply don't think the other institutions are legitimate. If they did they wouldn't be demanding that Zelaya return as president, given the arrest warrants and the fact Zelaya openly defied court orders and laws passed by Congress. If they did recognize the other institutions they'd demand Zelaya's opportunity to defend himself in court. But that requires accepting that the arrest order against him is legitimate.
DO you accept that?
I've actually written about the possibility of a trial multiple times, such as when the coup government refused to let Zelaya back into the country in early July.
One serious problem now for Honduran institutions are all the bogus charges emerging after the coup (not to mention the forged resignation letter).
The charges may be bogus but that's not relevant. I happen to think the impeachment charges against Clinton were completely bogus, but if the GOP had managed to get the necessary votes he would have been kicked out of office. I would have been very upset, but I would have accepted it and rejected any 'insurrection'. That's what respect for the institutions means.
I haven't seen that from Zelaya supporters. In fact I can hardly find any Zelaya supporter that recognizes that Zelaya openly ignored and defied judicial rulings such as when he stormed the military base to recover the ballots. That's pretty black and white stuff. The courts ordered X and Zelaya responded with a 'screw you'.
The charges may be bogus but that's not relevant.
How does this statement make any sense??
You may want to read up on what the rule of law means, who gets to decide what is bogus or not, and maybe something on the many examples of 'bogus' judicial rulings in the US that, nonetheless, were respected by all involved.
Even if the judicial rulings against Zelaya were 'wrong' he still had to obey them. Even if Greg is right and the charges against him are bogus he still has to accept whatever the courts decide.
Unless, of course, you don't think any of the other institutions are legitimate. Which is my point all along. Zelaya supporters just think it's OK for Zelaya to ignore any rulings he disagrees with.
You may want to read up on what the rule of law means
You may want to brush up on elementary logic. To say that bogus rulings are in accordance with the "rule of law" is a contradiction in terms. Bogus rulings aren't rooted in the law. That's why they're called bogus.
Sorry, you really need to read up on how a judicial system works. And who acts as a counterbalance. It's not the presidency.
BTW, Justin's argument, bad as it is, points to a common error among Zelaya supporters. Justin claims that:
To say that bogus rulings are in accordance with the "rule of law" is a contradiction in terms. Bogus rulings aren't rooted in the law. That's why they're called bogus.
This is wrong in practically all respects. History is filled with rulings that were later (and many at the time) widely considered to be wrong on the law, based on political motives, or simply ill-reasoned. Unfortunately they remained the law of the land. I'm surprised this basic historic fact has to be repeated to people who study politics professionally.
The only institution that can declare a ruling 'bogus' in Honduras is the their Supreme Court. RAJ wonders why I talk about the supremacy of the SC. The reason is simple, and he should know it. It's because on matters of Honduras law IT IS supreme.
The only recourse to a bad SC is to impeach them, and that's something only Congress can do. A president can't do anything. He has to obey. Period.
This simple basic fact, that it is the SC in Honduras that ultimately determines what is legal or not, is something Zelaya supporters just can't bring themselves to accept. Hence wrong arguments like the one posted by Justin, where if some outsider decides that they disagree with the SC's reasoning, then somehow it's not the law of the land. RAJ's argument on why Zelaya was OK in ignoring the judicial rulings against him on the ballots are pretty similar, and equally wrong.
My original point not only stands, but appears corroborated by the posts in this thread. Zelaya supporters act as if the other institutions have no legitimacy.
Well, now you've just backed yourself up into a corner, Gabriel. This is what happens when you don't work out the basic logic of a position before adopting it as your own. You can't say that a court ruling can be legally "bogus" and consistent with the "rule of law" at the same time. It's a simple contradiction in terms.
Justin,
You seem to have a hard time with this topic. Let's try one more time.
In the context of this conversation the word' bogus' or 'legally bogus' has been used with two very different meanings. RAJ and Greg are pretty clear what meaning they have in mind. You, on the other hand, attempted to mix up the two meanings. It's not clear to me if it was a silly attempt at sophistry or if you really don't understand the difference.
If by 'bogus' you mean a court ruling that is overturned, then ONLY the Honduras SC can do that. Since that has not happened there are no 'bogus' rulings in Honduras regarding Zelaya. Today there are no 'legally bogus' rulings on this topic.
Follow me so far?
Now if by 'bogus' you mean what Greg and RAJ have written, namely court rulings they happen to disagree with then yes, a ruling can be 'bogus' AND the rule of law at the same time. This is pretty common in the United States, just read a little judicial history.
Either way, no matter what definition of 'bogus' you use, the point remaiins the same, that Zelaya HAD to obey what the courts in Honduras ruled. Period.
Got it now?
Hence wrong arguments like the one posted by Justin, where if some outsider decides that they disagree with the SC's reasoning, then somehow it's not the law of the land.
No, Gabriel, this isn't about what I think. This is about what you just said.
The charges may be bogus but that's not relevant.
It is a contradiction in terms to say that the question of whether or not a charge is legally "bogus" is "not relevant" to its legal standing.
What you're basically trying to argue is that any high court is itself above the law. That would not be accepted as a legal standard in any democracy.
It is a contradiction in terms to say that the question of whether or not a charge is legally "bogus" is "not relevant" to its legal standing.
No it is not. Unless you are playing word games, you really need to read up on institutions and the judiciary. What anyone outside of the Honduras SC thinks of their rulings is irrelevant. If you or RAJ or Greg or anyone else thinks their rulings are bogus it is irrelevant. The only exception is what Congress thinks, since they can impeach the SC.
This is pretty basic stuff. It's bad enough you didn't know that Argentina lies about inflation, but it seems you don't even know what the role of a Supreme Court is.
In the context of this conversation the word' bogus' or 'legally bogus' has been used with two very different meanings. RAJ and Greg are pretty clear what meaning they have in mind. You, on the other hand, attempted to mix up the two meanings.
Bullshit. In the context of this conversation, the terms "bogus" and "legally bogus" have one precise meaning. Everybody (but you) knows what Greg means when he refers to "bogus charges." He's referring to charges that have no legal standing. In your response to Greg, you didn't say that his opinion about the charges is irrelevant. You said something totally different. You said:
The charges may be bogus but that's not relevant.
Your statement is, once again, a contradiction in terms. You're feebly attempting to argue that the question of whether or not a charge is legally "bogus" is "not relevant" to its legal standing.
Your argument amounts to saying that Honduras' high court is itself above the law and can rule however it pleases --no matter what the constitution states-- and still be operating within the "rule of law." Is that your view?
Arguing with Anonymous is literally not worth any of our time.
He shouts the way he does because he has nothing to say. I propose right now that none of us respond to him any more. He is not interested in learning facts; he is not interested in reasoned argument; he smears those who do not agree with him because he cannot actually win an argument.
His attack on Greg and me falsely claims that we do not think any Honduran institutions are legitimate. I would not be spending the time I am exploring the actual case law, the actual constitutional law, and the actual charges and rulings if I did not think the court system were legitimate, particularly if it can follow its own legal procedures and defend the presumption of innocence, instead of letting people like Anonymous interpret accusations as proof of guilt.
But that said, anyone who actually studies Latin American politics-- or for that matter, US politics-- knows that institutions can act illegitimately. What I have been scrupulously documenting are many of the ways that the actions of the court, and of congress, have been illegitimate.
I will not bend in the face of attack simply because some fool with no qualifications, no knowledge, and nothing but an ideological set of blinders that colors every issue, thinks he can criticize me.
I propose right now that none of us respond to him any more.
After this thread is finished, I'll leave Gabriel alone. But as long as he sticks to this oxymoronic argument that "the charges may be bogus but that's not relevant," I'm gonna continue poking at him in hopes that he will continue digging himself into a bottomless pit of incoherence.
RAJ,
There are now, what, 18 comments to this post? Yet you've managed to never really address my questions. You do resort to silly name calling. Does calling me a "fool with no qualifications, no knowledge" make you feel better? It's somewhat ironic that you describe me that way since I was the one that pointed out to you that your argument that lack of phones supported the need for a referendum betrayed a clear lack of knowledge of how pollsters operate in Latin America. On that topic at least, it was not me who lacked the knowledge or qualifications.
I've come to the conclusion that Justin really doesn't understand who gets to determine if a legal ruling in Honduras is bogus or not. But I think you do know the difference. You may not know how field work is carried out on Latin America but you appear to know about legal matters.
Zelaya supporters appear to love to play word games but can't bring themselves to say, clearly and unequivocally, if they think the other institutions are legitimate. You claim you think they are legitimate, yet you argued in another post that Zelaya was justified in simply ignoring the ruling that ordered the confiscation of the ballots. So maybe your argument is that the courts are legitimate so long as Zelaya thinks they are?
If the courts acted in an illegitimate way Congress can impeach. But what CAN NOT happen is Zelaya simply ignoring their rulings. Unless, of course, you actually believe that only Zelaya's actions have legitimacy.
If you really do believe that the other institutions are legitimate then you have to agree that Zelaya had no other choice but to obey the court ruling on the ballots. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Are you willing to say that? I doubt it.
Zelaya supporters appear to love to play word games...
No sir, this is not a game. I asked you a question, but you refuse to answer it. So allow me to repeat the charge and the question.
Your argument that "the charges [against Zelaya] may be bogus but that's not relevant" amounts to saying that Honduras' high court is itself above the law and can rule however it pleases --no matter what the constitution states-- and still be operating within the "rule of law." Is that your view?
Answer the question.
Post a Comment