treason

gop: s.s.d.d.

same sh*t different day

McConnell arranged for the transportation? I hope I see this when he's up for re-election.

Rachel Maddow actually did a segment on this last night. The State Department said no, but DeMint and a Republican on the Defense/Security Committee (I think) was able to finagle it that way.

In my opinion, it's borderline treason, but one of Rachel's guests said it's actually a violation of the Lucas Act (?) and is a federal crime.

How did the DoD authorize this? I mean who did it? And why would the DOD allow it, if it's not federal policy.And don't these Congressional fact- finding missions need at least one other person from the opposite party to qualify for a Congressional mission? And what exactly are the penalties for breaching the Logan Act? Can DOJ have someone waiting at Andrews, or wherever, to arrest them immediately upon their return to US soil?

Seriously, where the FUCK do these people get off?

a violation of the Lucas Act (?) and is a federal crime.

But I'm sure we will just have to look forward and move on.

Same sort of s*** Newt Gingrich used to play during the Clinton years. But when Nancy Pelosi paid a visit to Syria, even though she didn't say anything that undercut American policy, remember how the right screeched? Ooooh! She put a scarf over her hair to visit a Mosque -- tantamount to endorsing terrorism! Obviously she was trying to set up her own shadow-government! IOKIYAR.

Normally I agree solidly with your points and have no use for Jim DeMint (your observation that he's Jesse Helms for the 21st Century is on the money), however in this case my positions are reversed. It bothers me enormously that the essential premise of your posting is completely misleading: "the removal of the democratically elected government."

The legislature, the courts, and most of the executive are intact and functioning fairly normally. Only Zelaya was removed (quite peacefully) with the approval and participation of not only the legislature and the military, but also the Supreme Court. The alternative was to arrest Zelaya and put him on trial for violations of the constitution. Would that have been better?

Micheletti IS an inept and clumsy hack, but he IS the elected speaker of the legislature and, until Zelaya sneaked into the country to precipitate a crisis, was simply acting as a caretaker until elections can be held in a couple of months.

I'm afraid your progressive knee has been jerking and I'm sorry to see it.

and i'm afraid you, Larry McD, are misrepresenting what was and is happening in Honduras.

Aaron Schock, the Congressman from Peoria, IL, and the man with The Best Abs in Congress, is going on this trip as well. In his official press statement, he leaned on the Honduran Supreme Court order ousting Zelaya as support for claiming that there was no coup.

He's also calling it a fact-finding trip. First time since he announced his candidacy that he's shown any interest in facts.

@Larry -
I looked into this extensively (by Internet standards). I found the coup-governments arguments implausible and contradictory. Especially absurd were their attempts to wave around a 'signed resignation'. Additionally, their assertions that Zelaya's actions violated the constitution never made sense. At worst, Zelaya proposed to put an amendment on the ballot that owuld have let him run for another term - but he would not have been on the ballot himself and therefore could not have been legitimately elected.

If in the 90s the Republican Congress had arrested and exiled Clinton, as well as arresting the leftmost groups in Congress and the mayors of major liberal cities like New York, we wouldn't call that 'democratic' just because they had a majority.

Is anyone keeping a "Sedition List"?

These Republican meetings in Honduras are getting, I'm serious, rather close to sedition, aren't they? I guess we should expect sedition from secessionists. How times have changed in their minds, since when Bush was President and every opposition to him constituted treason, even proper expressions of opinion.

I couldn't find "Lucas Act" relevant to sedition, but in the search I found an interesting stricture relating to resisting the US government - applicable to that "Tenth Amendment" movement, perhaps:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002383----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2383

§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

There was no "coup" in Honduras, because (a) Honduras legally and lawfully removed its ex-president from office, and (b) even an illegal removal is not a coup unless it is committed by a "small group."

Many legal commentators have said that Honduras's removal of its ex-president, which was backed by Honduras's supreme court and elected Congress, was legal, including lawyers Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, Stanford's William Ratliff, and former assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes.

The Law Library of Congress recently noted the legal basis for the removal.

The fact that soldiers carried out the Honduras Supreme Court's arrest warrant doesn't magically turn it into a "coup."

A coup is defined as the "UNCONSTITUTIONAL deposition of a legitimate government by SMALL GROUP." Honduras's removal of its ex-president was supported by the ex-president's own party, the Congress, and a unanimous supreme court, mostly members of his own party.

It was backed by much of the population.

Definitely not a coup.

BTW, Larry McD, the core issue isn't how supposedly "appropriate" Zelaya's ouster was, it is the principle about elected officials opposing official US policy, and "on foreign soil" (as the Right loves to quote when it applies) - don't you agree?

Re: Lucas Act

S/B Logan Act, I believe.

As a diehard, partisan Democrat, I support Jim DeMint's position. I do not understand why our position has been to support an anti-Democratic president. Will NEVER understand it.

Another typical anti-American republican. Working against the country's interest seems to be popular with republicans. They are unpatriotic and treasonous. Arrest him when he gets back.

Many legal commentators have said that Honduras's remova...was legal, including lawyers Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, Stanford's William Ratliff, and former assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes.

Hmmm, I wonder what these particular individuals have in common. What...could...it...be....?

Every country on earth rightly condemned Zelaya's removal as a coup, including the OAS. His trying to provide a non-binding referendum on the question of whether a constitutional convention should be convened after he was out of office in no way triggered Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, as he

The members of the Supreme Court and both right-wing political parties in Honduras are part of the ruling elite. They were concerned with Chavez left-wing economic policies and saw them as as threat to their own affluence and power, and they've said as much in in public and private. And the military leaders came right out and said that there was no way in hell they were going to serve a leftist president, as that went against their School of the Americas training.

He WAS ousted by a small group, small compared to the people who voted for him.

It's become the pseudo-liberal equivalent of 'liking a band before they were cool' these days to make the claim that what happened in Honduras was legal and not a coup.

We get it; you guys are cool.

So, Obama's going to make these guys pay, right? Campaign hard against them in their state/district next time they're up? Flog their lack of patriotism, etc.? Poin out how they underrmine American values and policy?

Much of what has been said about Honduras is false.

The Law Library of Congress has strongly suggested that Honduras's removal of its ex-president from office was legal (although it also said that his subsequent deportation was illegal).

Many commentators have said his removal was legal and not a coup.

As Powerline noted, even "left-liberal" commentators have reached the conclusion that Honduras's removal of its ex-president was technically legal (even if they prefer to disregard Honduran law on the grounds that its constitution is supposedly outmoded).

The Honduras Supreme Court that declared Honduras's ex-president was no longer president was the most liberal it's ever had.

For example, it upheld the ex-president's massive increase in the minimum wage, which even a newspaper of the ex-president's own party said would shutter factories and wipe out tens of thousands of jobs.

Ironically, much of Honduras's poor aren't covered by minimum wage laws. By contrast, well-paid government employees sometimes are paid a multiple of the minimum wage, meaning that they benefited from the increase in the minimum wage even though they were not poor.

Small wonder that Honduras was basically broke at the time it removed its ex-president from office. He has spent more money than the country had, and had refused even to submit a budget lest his ability to spend money on his corrupt cronies (like the clownish Milton Jimenez) be constrained by budgetary safeguards.

The ex-president made Nixon look like an angel.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has announced that he is heading down to Honduras to encourage those who helped fund and supported the coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to resist American pressure to return Zelaya to office.
!!!
I don't know what "Act" that violates, but to lobby a foreign government to *resist* American policy is illegal, and likely some type of sedition. It really, really is.

Logan Act:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.[1][2]

DeMint is negotiating, and worse, against US policy - and he is not authorized (being a Senator does not make it "authorized".) Jim DeMint is a felon. And trolls, it doesn't matter whether Honduras really should have gotten rid of Zelaya, or did it according to their Constitution. The relevant laws here, are US laws. Should there finally be a prosecution under the Logan Act?

(Sorry, I don't believe most of those giving their reasons the "coup" may really have been legit, or Zelaya's shortcomings, are just trolls. I suppose the legal issues are debatable - but you admit it was not all kosher anyway, right? But you realize, there is a matter of principle here about lobbying a foreign government to "resist US pressure", regardless of whether you agree with that pressure or not?)

Let me be the first to say this HANS BADER your full of shit.

The ex-president made Nixon look like an angel. -Hans Bader

Our most recent ex-president makes Nixon look like an angel. The entirty of the modern Republican party makes Nixon look like an angel.

And just how much relevance does a comparison to Nixon have to the legality of Zeleya's removal? Or a comparitive statement about the relative liberalness of the Honduran supreme court?

Goose egg.

As Powerline noted... -Hans Bader

Ah, an unimpeachable source.

Oh, but don't worry, we still think you're so cool.

For the proposition that even "left-liberal" scholars admit that Honduras's removal of its ex-president was legal, Powerline accurately cited, and linked to, a commentary by Litho at DailyKos, which in fact said just that.

Litho, despite being a staunch lefty, used to admit in his diary at Daily Kos that Honduras's removal of its ex-president was "technically legal" under the Honduran Constitution -- as many non-liberal commentators have also said, like Dan Miller, Miguel Estrada, and Octavio Sanchez.

After Litho started getting cited by others for the proposition that Honduras acted legally, he conveniently changed his tune, and began saying it must have been illegal because the Honduran military admitted violating Zelaya's rights in deporting him. He also starting saying that Honduras's Constitution was an artifact (although its 190 years younger than ours, whose electoral college system gave rise to the peculiar result in Bush v. Gore)

But, of course, deporting Zelaya is a very different issue from removing from office.

His deportation was probably illegal, as the Law Library of Congress has said, but his removal from office itself was not. Those are two very different issues.

As the Library noted, Honduras's Congress and supreme court were able to point to statutory and constitutional provisions for their removal of the ex-president, but no such authority has been cited for deporting him (although some in Honduras's Congress and judiciary have claimed that the deportation was justified by "necessity of state," to prevent violence and jailbreaks).

When he returns, cuff him and lead him frog-walking into Levenworth! What a joke of a "leader" he is. He is not even embarrassed, which proves his idiocy! -Kevo

he's just engaged in a "fact-finding" mission to learn how to conduct a coup. NewsMax must have tapped DeMint to be point man for the overthrow of Obama to "protect and defend the Constitution"

DeMint looks a lot like Edward Everett Horton.

Coincidence?

Is he the same Republican who went to China and told them that he wouldn't blame them for not investing more money in the U.S. and in fact, if they pulled their debt instruments (bankrupting the US)? Someone needs to log this stuff somewhere to pull out during elections...

Hans, Bill Clinton's impeachment was "technically legal" in the sense that the Republicans were technically legally entitled to impeach him over trivia. That doesn't change the fact that morally, ethically, and practically, it was wrong in every sense. The sources you cite are barely relevant, and the official position of the United States is that Zelaya was removed from office and deported extra-constitutionally. You can continue to join Jim DeMint in being obstinately incorrect, if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that DeMint's trip in support of an illegal government and in defiance of official United States policy is bordering on, if not actively, sedition.

Only Zelaya was removed (quite peacefully) with the approval and participation of not only the legislature and the military, but also the Supreme Court. The alternative was to arrest Zelaya and put him on trial for violations of the constitution. Would that have been better?

Uh, yes!! What planet do you live on where it's better to exile accused criminals rather than give them a fair trial?

Seriously, you're arguing that it was better to throw the president out of Honduras than to present evidence in a court of law in a trial? Really?

By the way, is anyone else smelling sock puppets here? The phrasing that supposedly multiple posters are using is strangely similar.

Is he the same Republican who went to China and told them that he wouldn't blame them for not investing more money in the U.S. and in fact, if they pulled their debt instruments (bankrupting the US)? Someone needs to log this stuff somewhere to pull out during elections...

Right party, wrong guy. I think you're thinking of Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) who traveled to China back in June to "build trust" by telling them not to believe the budget numbers put forward by Congress. He said at the time "The Congress is actually gonna spend quite a bit more than what's in the budget, and the health-care bill probably being the lead driver of additional spending by the Congress."

Alternate flight arrangements? What do you want to bet its the corporate jet of some reactionary billionaire who stands to get a nice fat contract if the new military government stays in power.

This is absolutely typical of the Republicans:in the 1970s Jessie Helms went to Chile to encourage Pinochet's supporters to hang on against the Carter Administration's pressure (and actually accused the US Ambassador of being a Communist); as your commentators have noted, Rep Kirk tried to persuade the Chinese not to invest in our country and the right wingers cheer when our country does not win the Olympics. Extreme right wingers even talk about seceding. Who ever took them seriously as patriots. They only love this country when it's doing what they want.

You opininated freaks! You do not really care about Honduras or what happens there. This is just another excuse for you to run off your mouths...opinions...opinions...opinions! Most of you do not even have the facts straight. As such your opinions are as chaff in the wind.

If Saudi Arabia said it would cut off your oil unless your Supreme Court Reversed its ruling on making Abortion legal and tried to force them to declare homosexuality illegal, what would you have to say?

The U.S. Admin. has imposed sanctions on Honduras
including canceling U.S. visas of the Supreme Court Justices who voted unanimously on the interpretation of the HOnduran Constitution. Nobody else on earth has the power, authority or even the right to express opinions regarding the legality of what took place on that foreign soil.

The Admin. is trying to force the Supreme Court of Honduras and the interim Gov't to do something unconstitutional. The U.S. Congress has a duty to find the truth and to determine what in fact waht the Executive Branch is doing. Checks and balances are good. AND NECESSARY!!!!

If Senator Demint is not well received and treated unjustly, then we welcome him in Honduras as a true son of truth and freedom.

One day you opinionated freaks may thank God for the man that Demint is.

You should worry about taking your country back to Constitutional rule and support those in Congress who are trying to save the U.S. from sinking into Socialism and bankruptcy. You will only accomplish this by having a strong Congress and real leaders within.

Uh Jack M., part of "the rule of law" and the US Constitution is the principles therein, not just what anyone, like you, thinks is a cool idea or a bad idea. DeMint is violating the Logan Act, and shouldn't be lobbying that government against official US policy (remember how Repubs insisted that Bush was the CIC, even a "unitary executive"?) There are "channels", that's part of the "conservative" idea as it actually exists. DeMint was welcome to express criticism of our policy in the halls of Congress, he wasn't supposed to oppose us while in Honduras.

BTW, we aren't that stupid about the issues either. Did you catch that rebuttal, against kicking Zelaya out instead of having a trial?