In particular, did this happen?
Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set up a constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. In the next few months, every legal body in Honduras -- the electoral tribunal, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman -- declared the referendum unconstitutional. According to the Honduran constitution (articles 5, 373 and 374), presidential term limits cannot be changed under any circumstance; only Congress can modify the constitution; and political institutions are not subject to referendums.
The Washington Post apparently thinks it did.
I mean, I don't think they give their Op-Ed to damn liars.
I am willing to concede that maybe the Post just screwed that up and
printed a characterization of the referendum is both propagandistic and inaccurate, but does anybody
have a link to an accurate one??
Then, there is the question of impeachment:
In defiance of court orders, Zelaya persisted. Surrounded by a friendly mob, he broke into the military installations where the ballots were kept and ordered them distributed. The courts declared that Zelaya had placed himself outside the law, and Congress began an impeachment procedure.
This is a rather lame way to put it -- began a procedure??
Just how far could this procedure have legitimately been expected
to proceed? Was there ever any real chance of Zelaya's being impeached
in accordance with the rule of law, in light of the court orders that
had [allegedly] been defied??
Was the question about the constitutional convention legally on the ballot or not?
I have been previously accused of "spreading disinformation" for quoting this article. That is ridiculous. If the article is misleading then
the appropriate response is a link to a more credible source, not
character assassination.
The loudest attack of the previous version of this claimed that the
coup was totally illegitimate right-wing thuggery. If this is the case,
then why are the people who believe that still championing Obama's
current strategy of doing nothing about it?? Why are they attacking
me while defending Obama for attacking them?? That's right, if you
think Obama hasn't done enough to restore the rule of law in Honduras,
then HE has attacked YOU as follows:
"The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.
You can't have it both ways."
...
"If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their -- their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations."
I know who is trying to have it both ways and who is being hypocritical here. You can't say on the one hand that this is horribly illegal and on the other that you are not going to do anything about it. THAT is hypocritically trying to have it both ways.