Let’s look at a typical editorial basically supporting the coup in Honduras and compare it to the facts presented here:
He was removed from office three months ago in circumstances of doubtful legality. Both the Supreme Court and the Congress had demanded his removal for “repeated violations of the constitution and the law,” but the way it was done — woken up by soldiers and hustled out of the country by plane — smelled more like an old-fashioned military coup.
this sounds reasonable, but note it implicitly says this was not a coup (it only ‘smells’ like one) and pretends it might have been legal. Compare this to:
The fact: even if the order they received preceded events (which has been questioned) and were legal itself (which it was not, as constitutional authorities have repeatedly confirmed), the Armed Forces violated the order and the law by raiding President Zelaya’s house before 6 AM, and by removing him from the country. The order calls for him to be detained and for his statement on charges to be taken.
The claim: The Supreme Court had found President Zelaya guilty of treason
The fact:the public prosecutor’s filing does include charges of treason, but no legal decision on them had been or has since been rendered. The forcible removal of President Zelaya denied him due process, which legally includes the presumption of innocence. President Zelaya must be presumed not guilty of treason under the presumption of innocence.
The claim: the National Congress legally replaced the president following constitutional succession.
The fact: the National Congress has no authority to remove and replace the president. It literally is not their business. The session of congress on Sunday June 28 is of questionable legitimacy. There was no recorded roll-call vote. Claims of unanimity are clearly false as more than a dozen deputies state they did not vote in favor.
It was not legal (in a few ways) and was a coup.
Because the facts are against it, Dyer has to imply things:
But he did not achieve much in practice for the Honduran poor, and he failed to build mass support for his policies. Opinion polls this year put his popular approval at only 25 percent.
Moreover, he was running out of time, since the Honduran constitution allows presidents only one term in office, and his term ended this year. So he did something peculiar: He announced that there would be a non-binding referendum on creating a constituent assembly to change the constitution and allow presidents a second term.
It was peculiar because he had no legal right to hold such a referendum, nor does the Honduran constitution allow a constituent assembly to be elected for such a purpose. Even if the illegality of the process was ignored, there was no chance that it could all happen in time to let him run for a second term in the November election. In any case, his own party would refuse to re-nominate him. So what was his game?
Zelaya’s only chance of holding on to power was to create a crisis that would sweep all of those considerations aside. He pressed ahead with his plans for a referendum last June even after the Supreme Court declared it illegal. When the army refused to assist in the referendum, he fired the commander-in-chief. So the Congressional and judicial authorities moved against him, although they would have been wiser just to wait him out.
It couldn’t be that Zelaya thinks that 4 years is too short a time and that presidents after him should be able to rule longer. Since the army seems to be against him and he’s not all that popular, I’m not sure how he would take over but maybe he’s just an evil man bent on destruction.
Dyer then repeats himself (italics added):
Zelaya has already painted himself as the democratically elected victim of a military coup, and as such he enjoys unprecedented foreign support. If his domestic opponents are stupid enough to use force, he could actually win. Judging by their past performance, they may be that stupid.
again implying it wasn’t a coup. I really don’t understand these people. Recent events make it even more obvious what’s going on:
Masked police agents were perched from the windows of a television station early Monday, and soldiers formed a barricade around the headquarters of a radio station here after the de facto government shut them down indefinitely and restricted civil liberties in advance of an expected march in support of the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya.
The other government measures, announced late Sunday, prohibit unauthorized public meetings and allow the police to arrest anyone deemed to be a threat.
Also, compare the reaction to this:
President Álvaro Uribe, whose government has forged a close alliance with the United States to fight Marxist guerrillas and drug traffickers, stepped closer to extending his presidency when Colombia’s Senate voted late Wednesday in favor of an effort to allow him to run for reelection.
Uribe, elected in a landslide in 2002, was reelected after a constitutional amendment permitted it in 2006. During his tenure, Colombia has driven rebel groups into isolated, rural regions. Uribe’s government has received more than $5 billion in US aid to reorganize a once-hapless military and establish an ambitious drug-fumigation program.
But his administration has been mired in scandals that increasingly worry Democratic leaders in the US Congress. Some of Uribe’s top aides are under investigation by the attorney general’s office in a vast wiretapping case, and the army has been implicated in the slayings of up to 1,600 civilians.
I don’t recall seeing editorials against this by a conservative, so it doesn’t seem to be the power grab they’re against. What could it be?