[SashaLionx]

There was a pretty comprehensive PB thread on this, with some crazy translations of the Honduran constitution. From what I remember, the basic problem is the Constitution is not very clear on the legality of the plebiscite that Zelaya wanted to hold. There we're pretty strong arguments for and against its legality because its just so damn ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that there is no process of impeachment in Honduras. The constitution actually empowers the Army to uphold the "welfare" of the nation. So when the president acted in a manner that the countries' legislators viewed to be illegal, they followed the proper procedure of having the army remove the president.

So I have no idea how you reconcile this. Clearly this is a crisis that would have been avoided with some due process. They need some body to rule on the legality of the plebiscite (maybe that happened? Someone ruled it illegal I remember, but not sure if the Honduran congress just passed a law saying it was illegal or if they have an equivalent of the SCOTUS that interprets the constitution.) My understanding of the situation is that everyone is right/wrong depending on your reading of their constitution. They are in need of some serious mediation and due process.

I do think, given the history of Coups in central America, that even though I do believe this is not a typical "coup" per se, we are right to side with a democratically elected leader who has been removed from office without any clear process or legality.