You’re being disingenuous by implying that the military coup had the blessing of Congress and the court, which isn’t true. From what I hear, Congress was moving to remove Zelaya by lawful means when the military went rogue, deposed Zelaya, and placed a pliant puppet in office.

Second, the chief military lawyer in Honduras has admitted that the military acted illegally. See here.

There is no doubt that Zelaya precipitated this crisis, however, with a variety of ill-advised, if not illegal, moves. However, none of that explains or justifies the coup itself.

I would further note, btw, that most of the people who are convinced that the coup was legal/wasn’t a coup also lived in that alternate universe that was convinced of al Qaeda ties in Iraq and who thought that Mousavi would be pro-West. Something to consider, I would submit, as one ponders with universe to inhabit. I still believe that the main motivator for many on this subject is chavezphobia, not anything about actual facts on the ground. I am no Chavez fan, but he shouldn’t be the issue.

I apologize, btw, for being something of a blogging gadfly on this topic.

Now, it certainly is their country, and they can and will do as they like, but others don’t have to like it or support it. And we certainly don’t have to go along with the lies that this was some kind of imminent threat that was constitutionally dealt with. Clearly it was not constitutionally dealt with, as there is no constitutional method for removing the Honduran President from office. So it was a military coup by the oligarchy, and that sort of thing just doesnt’ sit well with the rest of the world. If Hondurans don’t care what the rest of the world thinks, that’s fine. But then don’t whine when the rest of the world cuts them off either. Doing whatever you want has consequences when others don’t like what you are doing. They are as free to shun you as you are to keep doing what you like. But this is a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it, as if the world is required to turn a blind eye to whatever goes on inside other countries and carry on as before. Well, the world gets to do what it likes also, and if it wants to condemn the coup makers, it can do that if it likes, and you can’t stop them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

In addition, he was not permitted to fire the head of the army. He did this, which was also illegal. They were entirely within their rights to strip him of his office. I haven’t needed to twist anything around. It’s all quite plain. I have never denied that bringing the military in was a mistake. But it also appears that the members of Congress and the court felt that they could not safely wait Zelaya out until January. In the end, it’s their call, because it’s their country. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether any of us think that Zelaya was so terrible–they do, and that ought to be the end of it.

And I still can’t see how you can say that Zelaya’s illegal, extra-constitutional depostion was the appropriate response to his unpopular presidency. Are you saying that anytime we have an unpopular President, we should ask the miltiary to remove him? Or does this only apply to banana republics? You seem to be twisting things around here in a rather absurd attempt to defend what seems indefensible. The coup leaders are not innocent victims who were “doing the right thing”. THey aren’t terrible either. And neither was Zelaya. Aside from simply being unpopular, what was his great crime? Wanting a popular, non-binding referendum? That doesn’t seem like the worst thing a democratic leader can try to do. If he’s so damned unpopular, what possible threat could he or his referendum represent? It would clearly go down in defeat. So what was he up to that required sudden military action? I see no evidence of anything that required that response. Do you have knowledge of some impending threat to the Republic that he was plotting? If not, how can you support this kind of illegal response?