Political Cartoons

need to zoom out and put a democracy stamp on Cuba too

From:

themeshuggener.livejournal.com

Go with Venezuela too!

From:

Cuba and Venezuela are a part of Central America? Interesting.

Perhaps we should zoom way out and include North Korea while we're at it, eh?

From:

themeshuggener.livejournal.com

Do the whole world!

From:

Methinks such a huge cartoon would have to go under an LJ cut. :)

From:

honduras' constitution specifically forbids not only the reelection of a president, but also any attempt by said president to change the constitution while he is in office. zelayas tried to do just that, and when the supreme court told him he couldn't and confiscated the ballots for the illegal referendum, he went in with some followers and stole them back. the military did not take over the government, they removed the president with the support of both the congress and the judiciary. the congress then elected a new president. not quite an impeachment, but far from undemocratic.

not that there are any true democracies on the planet earth anyway...

From:

weswilson

He was arrested for trying an opinion poll.

From:

Correct. plus this:

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005301

(deleted comment)

From:

Sounds about right.

From:

no. he was arrested for defying the constitution.

From:

weswilson

And if someone here was "defying" the constitution... by asking people a question... would you support them being arrested?

From:

The Honduran "government" is now gunning down civilians in the street. This argument is over.

From:

don't be silly.

From:

weswilson

oh come on... just a little silly.

From:

removing the president of a country by military force without the rule of law of an arrest or a trial makes it a coup.

Sorry.

From:

wight1984.livejournal.com

For it to be a 'coup', doesn't it have to be unconstitutional?

I don't know much about this situation, but the above description makes it sound like the president was acting unconstitutionally, not the military.

From:

ice-hesitant.livejournal.com

It's not a mutually exclusive situation. Both parties could have acted unconstitutionally.

From:

It was a non-binding resolution, as is fully legal and allowable under the Honduran Constitution. And even now, Zelaya stands by his claim that it would not have affected his term limit.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47476:

"It was to be a massive survey, we thought we would reach one and a half million individuals," said Zelaya. The survey was meant to "find the political temperature, to gauge what the public is thinking," and provide some important citizen participation in government decisions. It is the participation of the citizenship which empowers democracy and which gives us its true significance," he said.

"However," Zelaya continued, "I never thought that this would constitute as a crime, and that is where the problems began. Because there were individuals who thrive on the existence of poverty they use this as their discourse."

Zelaya is a "leftist." That's all that matters to the wingnuts. That's why they want Cuba and Venezuela added to the map in the cartoon. They howl and moan over the electoral disgrace in Iran, but they fully support this "special brand" of tyranny. How very fuckin' ironic, no?

The whole thing is a willfully overblown, propaganda-driven bum rap, propped up by the right-wingers in Honduras (and, in due course, the right-wing sheeple in the U.S.). The people you see supporting this military coup on this thread have been hand-fed a heaping spoonful of bullshit, and they probably (i.e., hopefully) don't even know it.

Edited Date: 2009-07-09 01:12 am (UTC)

From:

The only real problem I see on the anti-Zelaya part is that he was not put under arrest, but was deported.

(deleted comment)

From:

Not by military force. Not even close.

From:

What kind of force do you propose?

From:

The same, exact process we'd use right here in the U.S.A.

It sounds to me like you don't really know/care what happened down there, so long as the ousted leader was a "leftist." That about sum it up?

From:

Last time I checked Honduras was a sovereign state with its own constitution, why would they need to do everything exactly like its done in the USA?

From:

I didn't say they "need" to. I simply answered your question. What I believe, based on what I know of the situation, is that the military acted illegally. And the 35-nation OAS agrees with me. Unanimously.

Ah, but what do they know, right?

"Last time I checked Honduras was a sovereign state..."

Not any more.

From:

Yes, what do they know except the fact that their people, and non-executive branches of government might get a wrong idea from Honduras.

Direct from Wiki:

A sovereign state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.

From:

That definition doesn't mention anything about illegal military coups.

From:

still does not compromise sovereignty

From:

Iran is a sovereign nation, too. That didn't make their "election" any less illegal and immoral. So what makes our outrage over Iran greater than our outrage over Honduras? Both presidential seats were stolen, one by the mullahs (with the support of the military), the other by the military (with the support of the nation's corrupt right wing).

From:

I see the difference in the fact that in Iran the abuse came from the acting president who would not stand any trial and who decided to forcibly suppress any opposition.

This is the situation (very common) that Honduran military, judicial and legislative branches wanted to avoid. Zelaya's Central and South American supporters don't want to see this repeated in their countries.

I don't see Zelaya asking to return to Honduras to be tried. His ousting created one of the least bloody untimely changes of head of government in the region.

From:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/08/hrw-honduran-soldiers-fired-into-unarmed-crowd/

(deleted comment)

From:

So, based on what you've been able to gather from media reports (which I'm sure you're following very closely), you find yourself in a better position to judge the legality of the military takeover than the the OAS (who voted 33-0 vote to suspend Honduras), the U.N. General Assembly, the European Union and several other nations who have recalled their ambassadors from Honduras, along with the World Bank. which has already suspended some aid?

All of these bodies have simply failed to recognize the truth as you know it?

Remember, we're talking about a military overthrow based on a non-binding referendum. Read Plizak's reply on this thread, please.

(deleted comment)

From:

So why even bother commenting of the affairs of "other states" in the first place, John? In the end, what do they really matter, anyway, hm?

(deleted comment)

From:

Now we're on the same page.

From:

So would it make much difference if he would be arrested, tried and shot for treason?

He got much more humane treatment.

From:

robert-johnson.livejournal.com

Actually called a pronounciamento. Not a coup.

From:

I don't care if they call it a pink poodle. The military has established a curfew, has locked down television stations and other media, and most importantly, stormed the presidents residence -- crawling under fences at one point -- to exile the legally elected president of a democracy.

That's a coup.

From:

robert-johnson.livejournal.com

Nah, it's a pronunciamento.

If they had killed or exiled the whole regime that was in power it would be a coup. You could use the french, but they would call that a golpe de estado.

If they declared a military government then a Junta.

Thing is that this has happened in south and central america so much that they have a word for it. Like schadenfreude with the Germans or the apocryphal 500 inuit words for snow. When the military removes the had of state but leaves the ruling party in power and the succession continues as normal then it's a pronunciamento.

Unless you decide of course that that we can just enforce our janqui vocabulary on them. They have a word for exactly happened. maybe we should use it?

From:

either way, it's not a process that respects the rule of law.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/263/what-are-the-nine-eskimo-words-for-snow

From:

What's the Honduran term for this?

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/08/hrw-honduran-soldiers-fired-into-unarmed-crowd/

From:

so, if clinton or nixon had been impeached and then convicted in the senate, what would have happened if they refused to step down?

there was rule of law here. his actions had been declared unconstitutional and illegal by the supreme court and the congress.

From:

He can't refuse to step down after he's been convicted in the senate. He's been stripped of his presidency and turned into a private citizen again. You arrest him, remove him from the premeses and try him for whatever crimes are applicable.

I'm sorry. Rule of law =/= soldiers crawling under fences to put him on a plane and banish him. Add that to the consistent curfew, the limits on the in-country media, using the military to break up demonstrations of support for him.... it was a coup.

From:

"there was rule of law here"

Yeah, I've got your "rule of law" right here (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1908783,00.html)...

When this shit happens on the streets of Gaza, you get apoplectic. Let's hear you explain this one away.

"Self-defense," perhaps.

From: