Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:23, 28 June 2009

	Central America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Coup or a legal act?

Can this event be considered as a military coup as the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered (according to the BBC) the Army to remove the president who refused to cancel his illegal referendum and to reapoint the Amrmy Chief as ordered by the same court. I deem that this is not coup but a constitutional remeoval from office ordered by the Court and executed by the Army. --80.222.253.214 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article does not say that the Supreme Court ordered the army to do anything at all. All the article says is, "The Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president." That doesn't necessarily mean the court wanted the army to do anything at all. Ratemonth (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading a translation from freetranslation.com of http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/06/28/Noticias/Fuerzas-Armadas-han-actuado-en-base-a-derecho-dice-la-justicia-hondurena I think that perhaps 80.222.253.214 is right; it does appear the court may have given the military some legal authority to do this, but I am not sure exactly what the court approved. Ratemonth (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup 200.26.166.6 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the international community was quick to condemn the 'military coup', a was I. But if really the Supreme Court ordered the president's removal and its legal, then there was no coup...then there was a legal removal of the president. I also read some BBC stories about Honduras the last days and it seems that the ousted president wasnt following the Rule of Law. If there is more reliable references about the legal aspect of the sack of the president by the Court, we should replace 'Coup' with 'sacking of the president'. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:16, 28 June 2009 edit 200.26.166.6 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:23, 28 June 2009 edit undo 80.127.58.65 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:

	The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup [[Special:Contributions/200.26.166.6\|200.26.166.6]] ([[User talk:200.26.166.6\|talk]]) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)		The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup [[Special:Contributions/200.26.166.6\|200.26.166.6]] ([[User talk:200.26.166.6\|talk]]) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

			Sure, the international community was quick to condemn the 'military coup', a was I. But if really the Supreme Court ordered the president's removal and its legal, then there was no coup...then there was a legal removal of the president. I also read some BBC stories about Honduras the last days and it seems that the ousted president wasnt following the Rule of Law. If there is more reliable references about the legal aspect of the sack of the president by the Court, we should replace 'Coup' with 'sacking of the president'. [[Special:Contributions/80.127.58.65\|80.127.58.65]] ([[User talk:80.127.58.65\|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)