Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|

It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.

What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.
He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out. (Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?) What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.

You are a Honduran Constitutional law expert now.

Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America. So far as I
know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?


It only has to be accepted by the citizens of Honduras, it is their
country.