On the other hand, everyone, including our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is condemning the action of the military.
Sure, a coup is a bad thing. But what is a President acting outside the Constitution and in violation of that Constitution?
An anonymous commentator commenting on the Organization of American States (OAS) and its position on the situation in Honduras:
The US reaction shamed us. Honduras' institutions tried to deal with Zelaya's Chavez-inspired move to hold an illegal referendum. The primary voices against him came from the Supreme Court, Attorney General, and Congress; most are from his own party. The military obeyed constitutional order and quickly supported the process of naming an interim president, Congress president Roberto Micheletti. Aside from Chavez, Ortega, and Castro, Zelaya's only support has been from the masses - and not even much from them. While there are claims that Cuban and Venezuelan diplomats were beaten, I have seen no evidence.One thing seems clear. The US is not really supporting democracy around the world. We are acting in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be. Stability is the order of the day under the current administration.
I believe we should congratulate the armed forces and civilian leaders, especially the Court, rather then condemn them in the name of democracy, and indicate our willingness to support elections in November as scheduled.
Here is the thought problem.
To whom should a soldier swear allegiance, the head of state or the Constitution?Regards — Cliff
What is the rule in the United States?
If the President goes rogue, what should the military do?
In a more concrete way, if the US President orders the US into a war that the US Congress has specificially voted down (and voted to not provide funds for), what is the duty of the military?
2 comments:
A close Honduran friend (own-DUR-ahn ;-) expressed frustration to me that his country found itself unable to function without intervention of the military. (e.g. his current facebook tag-line is "Fuera Golpistas!") However, as you've noted, as "coup's" go, this is hardly the usual. The supreme court, the legislature, and the country's laws as they are written, all speak clearly to the president's acts being illegal. What was missing was the legal recourse to prohibit him from essentially mounting his own coup (by ignoring laws regulating public referendums) to begin with.
As my Honduran friend also noted, the Gringos' expression, "two wrongs don't make a right" would seem to clearly apply to all sides. The error I find in the US response is to disrespect the nuances of the problem, and to speak as if our opinion ought to have any weight in what is a very critical point in the history of a sovereign nation.
I find civilian control of the military to be one of America's strongest strategic advantages in this world. That our elected officials all swear allegiance to the constitution seems equally brilliant. I think it would be unfair to expect military personnel to have to interpret and understand the constitution in all matters as a matter of primary allegiance, but it would also seem encouraging that the military in Honduras has been able to retain a sense of it nonetheless. I should hope ours would do the same, even though it missed a trick in following executive orders instead of the proper declaration of the Congress which was never given for our illegal invasion of Iraq.
Kad
Hold that thought about the US military. Somewhere in the EMail storm is a pertinent document. I will blog on that soon.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment