Constitutionally Honduran
Posted by aogSunday, 05 July 2009 at 09:47 TrackBack Ping URL

With regard to the situation in Honduras, I stand with the constitutionalists, that is the legislature, the supreme court, and the army. I haven’t commented before because I was caught up in some work stuff and because it’s usually best to wait a day or two because initially reports are generally wrong.

What seems clear to me now is that former Honduran President Zelaya is the party in the wrong. I would agree that his removal was not handled in an optimal fashion, but given a decision by the supreme court and a unanimous vote by the legislature, any who has respect for the rule of law should be lining up with the latter against Zelaya. It is also clear that, despite what NPR continues to report, that it was not a miltary or even military backed coup. The military executed the orders of legitimate civil authority as is their proper duty. The question for those who carp about the poor implementation should be asked to apply the same standard to the former President, who was implementing his duties more than a bit poorly. But they won’t because standards only apply to honest folk, not thugs.

Of course, our President Obama immediately sided with anti-democratic side in stark contrast to his dithering on Iran. I suspect in the latter case Obama wanted to immediately side with the mullahocracy but was persuaded it would be bad PR. That’s why it took so long to take even the pathetic action of disinviting Iranian diplomats to Independence Day barbecues.

I am disappointed that the OAS is working against democracy, although it’s hardly surprising in an organization that doesn’t see anything wrong with the Castro regime.

I am no longer disappointed that Old Media is playing the “unfairly deposed President” line — siding with thugs and despots is what Old Media does these days. Instead of informing citizens they act as propaganda organs for any one who opposed the liberal order that makes them possible. Maybe I should use the term “exforming” or “deforming” to describe what they do.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Barry Meislin Monday, 06 July 2009 at 02:09

Indeed.

It seems that Chavez gave Obama an inscribed copy of his magnum opus; and Obama feels he must oblige. Call it personal chemistry, if you wish.

And be very, very worried.

The only remaining question for this administration is: What will be the tipping point?

erp Monday, 06 July 2009 at 07:01

David Warren sums it up.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 06 July 2009 at 08:29

And as usual, Old Media steps in to oppose the forces of democracy. It’s as if all that “free press is important” is just a catch phrase with no meaning.

erp Monday, 06 July 2009 at 09:14

We’re in this mess largely because we no longer have one (a free press).

I read that Zelaya’s plane and a couple of other planes full of South American dictators, UN officials and the media left for Honduras from Washington. No explanation of why they were all in Washington on the 4th of July.

If they were there to confer with UN officials, they were in the wrong city.

Antoine Rencontres Monday, 06 July 2009 at 11:29

A military coup is never a democracy!!! Of course Obama will not supported and nobody should support it!

Antoine Rencontres Monday, 06 July 2009 at 11:29

A military coup is never a democracy!!! Of course Obama will not supported and nobody should support it!

Harry Eagar Monday, 06 July 2009 at 12:36

I know nothing about Honduras and have no opinion about what’s going on, but I would be surprised to learn that the Honduras constitution provides for removing an officer by grabbing him in his bedroom and dumping him in another country.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 06 July 2009 at 12:53

No, it doesn’t, a point which I covered in the original post. It was to people like you, who say if the good guys don’t scrupulously observe every minute detail, then they are no different from the bad guys, to whom no such scrutiny is applied. That is, you seem concerned with the details of how the former President was actually removed, but unconcerned about what that President was doing before that and whether it was any sort of violation of the Honduran constitution. Why is that? What end result do think you get from micro-analyzing the putatively law abiding and giving a complete pass to the “badges? we don’t need no steenking badges!” crew?

Harry Eagar Monday, 06 July 2009 at 13:16

I don’t know who the bad guys are, so if I were to scrutinize anybody, I would have to scrutinize everybody. Which I have no intention of doing.

Suppose the president was violating the constitution. What does the constitution say about how to correct him?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 06 July 2009 at 15:11

But you were happy to scrutinize the legislature / court / army side. So not being willing to “scrutinize everybody” is de facto being unwilling to scrutinize the former President. Again, my question is — why? However, I will do the research that you can’t be bothered to do before condemning one of the sides. The best I can find (and this is mentioned, in paraphrase, in multiple sources)

[the Honduran] Constitution has a specific provision that states that any elected official that advocates for or tries to circumvent the Constitutionally mandated process for such a referendum ceases to retain their elected position.

The Honduran Constitution both permits impeachment in general and states that an elected official ceases to retain their office in the above situation. Their Constitution does not, however, spell out the exact process for removal in either instance.

I would say, based on this, that the President became former as soon as he pushed ahead with the referendum and sacking the chief of the military despite a clear order from the supreme court to not do so. I would add further that a unamimous vote by the legisature to remove him from office is reasonable proxy for impeachment.

One might also ask why I have to do research on this myself, rather than being able to read it in one of the organs of essential information, a newspaper. The answer, I believe is that they, like you, already have a conclusion and have no need of scrutinizing anything beyond what confirms that conclusion.

Barry Meislin Tuesday, 07 July 2009 at 02:05

I don’t know who the bad guys are…

OK, I’ll help you out a bit. The bad guys are Chavez—-and his cronies and pals and supporters and apologists—-who under the guise of “Liberty” and “Freedom” (and “socialism”—-now there’s an oxymoron for you) and knowing what’s best for The People (but all this really means is what’s best for him) grab as much power as he can by purportedly legal and democratic means, with a little help from his friends (i.e., a packed and intimidated judiciary, a controlled media, and an acquiescent military (see under, e.g., “Elections, Iran”; “Constitution, Venezuela”).…

.…and end up trampling basic freedoms so as to ensure that “Freedom” (i.e., Chavez’s total authority) rings.…

…and, in short, end up destroying the country they supposedly love, and relegate the people who live there (i.e., those who survive or decide to stay or who are unable to leave) to a wretched existence.

P.S. Should one add that the bad guys are precisely the guys who count on decent (let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, shall we?) people not knowing who the bad guys are??

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 07 July 2009 at 13:43

All I said was that I would have bee surprised if the Honduran constitution called for arresting the president and dumping him in his nightshirt in another country. Not a whole lot of scrutinizing was required to guess at that.

Your ‘research’ has not shown that that is in the constitution.

In my view, the head of government should be able to fire the head of the military, and if there is anyplace in the world where that should be in the constitution, it’s Central America.

Also, your ‘research’ suggests the Honduran constitution is slipshod when it comes to process.

I have no opinion, but some facts that no one doubts are suggestive, like, as Thoreau once said, ‘finding a trout in the milk.’

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 07 July 2009 at 15:33

Your ‘research’ has not shown that that is in the constitution

Sigh. I don’t know why I respond, since you obviously don’t actually read my comments. I noted that in my original post. I noted it in a previous response. Could you just give me a rough count of how many times I wil have to type it out before it registers with you?

I have no opinion

Really?

In my view, the head of government should be able to fire the head of the military, and if there is anyplace in the world where that should be in the constitution, it’s Central America.

I would be surprised to learn that the Honduras constitution provides for removing an officer by grabbing him in his bedroom and dumping him in another country

But if you have no opinion on any of this, why did you comment in the first place, on a point I had already addressed? Was it my fault for imputing some cause to that, rather than ascribing it to random synapse firing?

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 08 July 2009 at 13:02

My shtick is restating the obvious, or, when nobody bothers to notice it, stating it for the first time.

I don’t think you are helping yourself much here. If, as you seem to think (and for all I know, you’ve got it right), the president was automatically ex-president by the time of the kidnapping, then the army kidnapped a private citizen and dumped him in another country.

I would hope that would be a violation of Honduran law, but what do I know?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 08 July 2009 at 13:48

Re-iterating….

Should I view this as the equivalent of posting on my rocket picture a comment like “fire is hot” or “what goes up must come down”?

Yes, that was a bad thing. Thank you for noticing!

David Cohen Wednesday, 08 July 2009 at 19:31

Has anyone seen any defense of the administration’s position that actually bothers to deal with what’s actually in the Honduran constitution? Why (other than reflexive defense of leftists and Harry’s knee-jerk salute to the Brezhnev Doctrine) is the administration taking this position?

Harry Eagar Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 02:24

No, but over at Volokh there’s a hilarious defense of the putschists, which says, blandly enough, that the army ‘exceeded its authority’ but that the army is still subject to the civil government.

I guess that’s one way of disposing of ex-presidents. The poster adds that Honduras is getting ‘unwanted attention.’

No kiddin’.

I am not sure why everybody is having conniption fits about a coup in bananaville. There have been dozens, and most (though not all) of the others were greeted with a big ho-hum.

I will not be surprised when the White Terror starts. Just once, for fun, I’d like to see the United States intervene against a rightist subversion of a country’s government.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 08:12

So now the entire Honduran Congress and Supreme Court are “putshcists”? They constitute a “rightist subversion of the country’s government”? Not that you have an opinion, of course…

I think the importance of this event is that it is not a coup, it is the government defending democracy and the rule of law. Not that you would want to learn that through any scrutiny, of course…

erp Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 09:46

Harry, the subverters you label rightists are really fascists and the only difference between them and the commies are they’re home grown and not Soviet puppets.

David Cohen Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 11:33

Harry: As the Volokh post makes clear, the Army exceeded its authority (as far as we know) only by allowing the former President to travel to Costa Rica, rather than keeping him in country under arrest. They did so to avoid civil strife. That’s hardly either kidnapping or putshcist behavior.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 12:46

‘Allowing.’ Do words have meaning any more?

It was either a putsch or a kidnapping. You guys are beginning to sound like Nixon. ‘Of course, we could bundle me up like an indigent patient at a Los Angeles hospital and dump me on skid row. . . . . But it would be wrong.’

The idea that the new guys in Honduras were ‘defending democracy’ is getting harder to sustain. Anybody wanna take bets that November’s electoral slate will be open?

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 15:01

The idea that the new guys in Honduras were ‘defending democracy’ is getting harder to sustain

I thought you weren’t going to do any scrutiny. Why do you care about a coup in bananaville? And of course you get basic facts wrong, in that there are no “new guys”. It’s the same legislature, the same supreme court, and the new President is the legally designated successor from the same party.

But my real question would be on what basis do you presume that former President Zelaya is pro-democracy? Or would defend it more than the current government? Suppose it were the case that the current government will damage the local liberal democratic order, but Zelaya would destroy it. What would you recommend doing then? Or is that scenario simply inconceivable even though you know nothing about Honduras?

I am a bit concerned about some of the actions of the current government. But unlike you, I cannot see one bad act as totally discrediting one side while sacralizing the other. You truly embody the “only look at one side” style of modern journalism.

David Cohen Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 17:15

Harry: That’s what I’m asking. Where are you getting this information?

Harry Eagar Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 17:35

Volokh, daily newspaper, NPR.

I didn’t say Zelaya is a democrat, although so far as I know, his putsch consisted of calling for a non-binding referendum. I will accept that in Honduras this is unconstitutional. Odd, but there you have it. Since the army was, obviously, not going to allow that to go forward, the Zelayist threat to democracy seems almost entirely notional.

Body count so far: Anti-Zelayaists, 1. Zelayists, 0.

I will not argue with erp that many, perhaps most of the rightist coup regimes in Latin America were fascist. My question is, why was my government supporting them?

erp Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 19:52

Democrats always support socialists.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 20:44

And canning the army chief when the army chief wouldn’t participate in the illegal referendum. And proceeding after the Honduran supreme court specifically said “that’s illegal - don’t do that”. Again I come back to the clear opinion expressed by that court and the legislature on the subject. I would like to know why you think they have no idea of their constitution, how their government should be run, or equal moral authority with the president.

Barry Meislin Friday, 10 July 2009 at 01:05

Any friend of Chavez’s is a friend of mine.…

And if you think that the people of Honduras have any right to defend themselves against tyranny, then that’s just too bad, amigo.… We’re doing things differently around here these days. We got a mandate.…

Besides, it’s better to submit to tyranny legally (or supposedly so) then to resist tyranny if resistance bears any whiff of illegality. Resistance to tyranny is so, so, I don’t know, 20th Century. Make that 19th Century. I mean 18th Century. Whatever.

They got to realize they have no business doing anything, anything that’s illegal. (Hey Joe, by the way, are those marchers in Teheran, Isfahan, Shiraz, you know, Joe, Iran… Are those guys legal?? No Joe, don’t bring up my, I mean our, cabinet. Damn, can’t you keep your trap shut?? Ever??)

(Besides, Hugo gave me an autographed copy of his book, and that’s got to count for something. I mean his heart got to be in the right place. Nobody else ever gave me an autographed copy of his book. Nobody. OK, so the Jews of Venezuela are either out of there or scrambling to leave. They’re always leaving somewhere or other. I mean look at Chicago. They’re alway going further north or further east…Can’t get much further east, hah, hah, get it? Joe, d’you get it? Oh forget about it.…)

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 10 July 2009 at 08:56

I just realized that Mr. Eagar’s last comment castigates the army for not participating in an illegal act. I.e., that the army would not let the illegal referendum go forward. Break the law, don’t break the law — whatever, the army is guilty guilty guilty!

Harry Eagar Friday, 10 July 2009 at 12:40

‘whatever, the army is guilty guilty guilty!’

Pretty much the history of Central America in 7 words.

I suppose that if Honduras is as dysfunctional as you suppose, then the only way to prevent an illegal (anything) would be to send the regiments into the streets. If that’s the situation, then Honduras has much worse problems than a lefty president, and well-wishers of Honduras would be focusing on that.

Jurisconsults who have attempted to make sense of the constitution (at VC, eg) seem to find it almost uninterpretable, in the legal sense.

Whatever, Zelaya’s call for an illegal referendum — given contentions that he was already hopelessly unpopular — don’t seem to call for an alarm any higher than DEFCON 1. Lefty though he was, HE did not shut down all the organs of communication, impose a nationwide curfew or shoot anybody.

It seems to have been left up to the rightists — or, as erp would call them, the fascists — to think of those.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 10 July 2009 at 14:19

I don’t suppose Honduras is dysfunctional. You’re making things up again.

It is good to see you admitting that you have a Narrative that makes facts and events (such as these) are irrelevant. I am left wondering why you read as you don’t seem have interest or use for the information there in.

erp Friday, 10 July 2009 at 17:25

Honduras isn’t a dictatorship ergo its leaders aren’t fascists. I wonder why do you think they’re rightists?

Harry Eagar Friday, 10 July 2009 at 17:54

Your Narrative posits a dysfunctional state. Don’t they have a civil police? Really, all you need to know is that the section of the constitution he was accused of violating was the 239th section. I don’t know any functional government that has an organic law with over 200 articles. We have 6 and fewer than 30 limited amendments.

(Link not working for me, so I don’t know what facts and events you are referring to.)

erp, I don’t know whether they are rightists. I also don’t know whether Zelaya is a leftist. The antiZelayists are not acting like democrats.

Let’s say it was a ‘real’ coup. What different (aside from legal interpretations) would have happened? It looks exactly like a ‘real’ coup.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 10 July 2009 at 18:55

I don’t have a Narrative, and what I have posted doesn’t posit a dysfunctional state. While I would agree that having 239 sections to a Constitution is not a good sign, deducing dysfunctionality from that is both an observation and not dependent on my putative Narrative.

I don’t know whether they are rightists

Hmmmm. From where might erp have gotten the idea you thought so? Here, perhaps?

I will not be surprised when the White Terror starts. Just once, for fun, I’d like to see the United States intervene against a rightist subversion of a country’s government.

As for the link, I fixed it. It just goes to a comment a few places back, but it does veryify that you’re not reading, you’re just skimming for keywords.

Let’s say it was a ‘real’ coup. What different (aside from legal interpretations) would have happened?

See the now working link for several significant differences which have been noted repeatedly in the comment string.

erp Friday, 10 July 2009 at 22:04

Having a discourse with Harry is like trying to play ping pong with a ball only visible to him.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 13:37

Those are paper differences. They mean something somewhere, but not on the ground, where everything looks coupish.

I have been needling you guys for the pleasure of watching you defend the idea of an unamendable constitution, an idea previously encountered only among the fidelistas. Eric Hofer was right.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 18:23

Those are paper differences

So are the differences between an arrest and a kidnapping. As usual, such things matter when convenient for you, and not otherwise.

watching you defend the idea of an unamendable constitution

Let me know when we start doing that.

Or should I write some code to just post lorem ipsum to your comments, since the actual content doesn’t make any difference? We aim to please here at Thought Mesh.

joe shropshire Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 02:10

I dunno. I sort of agree with the idea that the Honduran constitution ought to be unamendable by Hugo Chavez, or our young president for that matter. Watch the pea.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 14:27

‘So are the differences between an arrest and a kidnapping.’

Just so. How many arrests does the Honduran army usually make? Aren’t arrests usually followed with initial appearances, charges, referrals to grand juries and the like? Applications for bail? Sequestration?

Even so, I understand you to be arguing that it WAS a kidnapping, so so what?

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 12 July 2009 at 15:41

This is the so what:

As usual, such things matter when convenient for you, and not otherwise.

The differences matter when you want to condemn the army and the rest of the current government, but don’t matter when such differences would defend the same people. It’s a standard that only counts evidence as valid if it fits your Narrative, even if that means turning a criteria on and off like a light bulb.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 13 July 2009 at 09:15
OK, two points from this story
WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. government voiced concern on Wednesday over actions taken by Niger’s President Mamadou Tandja to extend his rule in the West African country.

“These decisions undermine Niger’s efforts over the last ten years to advance good governance and the rule of law,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Tandja responded to the rejection by Niger’s highest court of his plan to seek at least another three years in power by sacking the judges and naming a new Cabinet.

1. How is this any frickin’ different than Honduras, and how does the WH explain the difference in reaction?

2. Won’t somebody, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, get Joe Wilson over to Niger, STAT!!?!!?!!???

hit and run

Barry Meislin Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 06:23

How is this any frickin’ different than Honduras, and how does the WH explain the difference in reaction?

1. As far as I know, Hugo Chavez is not a friend of Mamadou Tandja. 2. As far as I know, Mamadou Tandja does not hate the U.S.

So as far as I know, there is no reason for Obama to support Mamadou Tandja. Alas.

Related.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 15:50

Not following your argument at all. So far as I have seen, the United States Government has not supported Zelaya’s plan to extend his term of office.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 16:47

President Obama spoke out forcefully for re-instating Zelaya. The State Department supported it as well, neither with any conditions such as dropping plans for extending Zelaya’s term. Zelaya’s initial flight to re-enter Honduras originated from Washington DC, something certainly read as support by any one paying attention. If you look at the original cite, you can see that the Obama Administration tried for weeks before the ouster to prevent it, but not so much as to get Zelaya to drop his plans for term extension.

You would never let a Republican openly and strongly support someone fighting over an issue and then claim it did not represent support for that person’s position in the issue. But I am sure somehow that doesn’t apply here. I await with anticipation what rhetorical flourish you will use to do that.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 23:11

The US also, from what I hear, tried to dissuade Zelaya from his extension plan. What was Obama supposed to do, send in the Marines?

Nevertheless, there is no comparison between advocating that an elected official serve his term and not advocating that a president serve a longer term than he was elected to. Not even close.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 23:44

I haven’t heard that any serious effort was made to disuade Zelaya.

As for what could have been done, what about publically condeming Zelaya’s illegal actions and telling him he would get no support from the USA if he proceded with them? What of insisting the same before sponsoring his illegal plane flight back? What about acknowledging any of this in public statements after Zelaya’s exile? What about not jumping in to the issue instantly?

Nevertheless, there is no comparison between advocating that an elected official serve his term and not advocating that a president serve a longer term than he was elected to.

Ah, the irrelevant antecedent gambit with a twist of distortion by simplification, excellent choice!

The point is, of course, Zelaya’s illegal actions and defiance of court rulings, not his serving a longer term than to which he was elected (irrelevant antecdent). Not to mention that Zelaya wasn’t serving his term out because of the unamious action of the legislature and judicial branches (distortion by simplification).

The real problem here is not that you won’t agree with me, but that you won’t even admit to the possibility that I am right. That you instantly and irrecovably condemn the current government because the army helped them, that single fact regulating all others to irrelevance. No wonder you felt no need for additional scrutiny, but it’s not clear that’s an accurate method of analysis.

erp Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 07:54

The US also, from what I hear, tried to dissuade Zelaya from his extension plan.

Harry, I didn’t hear about that either and since you seem to have sources not available to the rest of us, tell us who in the US tried to dissuade Zelaya and why was he, and his pals the other South America dictators, were in Washington in the first place. If they were conferring with UN officials, they were about 300 miles south of the mark.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 12:46

NPR reported that the US ambassador counseled against the referendum but that Zelaya went ahead anyway. I repeat: What was the US supposed to do then, send in the Marines?

I am indifferent as to who misgoverns Honduras but generally supportive of the idea of not letting the US misgovern it for them.

There appears to be more than a little doubt about whether process was followed at any point in this mess, starting well before Zelaya’s coup, if that’s what it was. (If it was, it was the weakest coup I can remember.)

I am so far from disputing Guy’s possibility of being right that I have conceded him either of the two possible interpretations (that the army acted funny in dumping a removed president without process or that it kidnapped a private citizen).

Now it may be that the constitution was what Skipper would call a self-licking ice cream cone. I have said that if that’s the case, then Honduras has much more serious problems than kidnapping politicians.

Army intervention in a civilian government in Central America? What could possibly go wrong?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 14:16

I repeat: What was the US supposed to do then, send in the Marines?

I repeat:.

Army intervention in a civilian government in Central America?

That it was an army intervention is one of the facts strongly in dispute, something I have pointed out repeatedly including in the original post.

Barry Meislin Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 01:16

What the incident in Honduras is all about.

And why Obama’s position on the issue is so, um, questionable?.

(At the very least, he should have threatened not to read, or finish reading, Chavez’s book!!! Or even threaten to return it!!!)

Harry Eagar Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 14:13

Oh, well, that settles it then.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 15:43

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally think it’s still somewhat undetermined although the evidence is strongly indicative.

Harry Eagar Monday, 20 July 2009 at 12:30

I thought you were the one who demanded such high standards of reporters.

An unsourced story from a newspaper on the other side of the ocean might be true. Odd things happen in the news business. But, as Skipper would say, needs some ‘splainin’.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 20 July 2009 at 15:31

If you consider not passing off agit-prop as news and not making things up “high standards”, then yes, that was me.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 24 July 2009 at 11:20

Cite: Downplaying pro-government marches.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 13:56

Perhaps my search skills have deserted me, but I cannot find any reports of any protest of any kind in Tegucigalpa on or around July 22.

When is this march supposed to have happened?

erp Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 14:52

Harry, I understand your distress. In Obama’s World, links seem to disappear and even whole subjects just no longer exist (at least on Google). In the future we’ll all need to take screen shots of everything and store them on flash drives or we’ll start to doubt our own eyes and ears.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 17:37

Mr. Eagar;

You don’t always have to use a netsearch. One of the best features of the Internet is the ability to “link” directly to cited articles, rather than requiring readers to search for them. If you look at my previous comment, you may notice that the phrase “Downplaying pro-government marches” is formatted differently than the rest of the comment. This formatting indicates that there is “link” from that phrase to the source material. In most web browsers, if you put your cursor over the phrase and then press the left mouse button, your browser will display a different page, the one to which the link refers, which is the cited article. Go ahead, give it a try. I think you’ll find it a useful thing.

But it gets better. Anyone (in a completely unregulated fashion!) can create links, so the cited article can, in turn, have additional links to further citations. If you click on my link, then click on the phrase “this AFP story” you will find exactly the kind of report for which your search failed. Oh, the power of technology — experience it today!

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 28 July 2009 at 14:28

You misunderstand me. I was looking for ANY other news report of that protest besides AFP’s, or blog commentary on the criticisms of AFP.

I still have not been able to find one.

This, of course, would reinforce, not impugn, your position — if the march happened.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 06 August 2009 at 08:56

Cite: White House revokes diplomatic visas for Honduran officials while trying to open talks with the Taliban. Clearly, this Administration knows who is worthy of negotiations and who are so despicable as to be beyond that.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 13:55

A mixed pair of cites —

White House blasts Zelaya’s return — is the Obama Administration finally realizing they’ve back a delusional loser?

On the other hand, the interim government of Honduras has suspended some civil liberties due to issues with supporters of Zelaya.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 01 October 2009 at 12:46

Cite: Congressional Law Office declares that, in their legal view, Zelaya’s removal and arrest were lawful.

Post a comment