I think CRS means removal from the country was wrong, not removal from office. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads: If they hadn't removed Zelaya from the country, he would have either rallied forces loyal to him to stage a coup, or been killed by forces who saw him as a threat to their democracy. Either way, Zelaya WAS and IS a threat, as he continued to OPENLY defy the country's Congress and Supreme Court. So what if the deportation of a usurping President is not EXPLICITLY spelled out in an Article of the Honduran Constitution — that's why the key decision makers in their Congress and military thoughtfully consulted with one another and acted in the best interest of their nation. Just like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum — give the brat a "time out." If they imprisoned Zelaya in their country, they would have risked a break out by pro-Zelaya factions and risked open revolution. If Honduras executed Zelaya — as they would have been justified to do for his treasonous acts — he would have become a martyr and caused even longer-lasting conflict in the region. The leaders in Honduras acted better than anyone else in the region would have under the circumstances, dousing the flames of support from the idiot Progressives there who want to import Socialism and Dictatorship to Honduras. Kudos to the leaders in Honduras who made the tough call. Thumbs down to the current leaders in the US (Obama and Hillary) who didn't support them — and Honduran desire to remain a Democracy. |
If Zelaya had been allowed to remain in the country, I'm sure there would have been a large amount of civil unrest. But, it would have also been a lot more difficult for Obama and friends to claim that it was an coup.