“To disrupt the systems, perceptions and behaviors that support violence by building alliances between the communities and the state (especially the police and security forces).”

and that is all the article is full of dime a dozen slogans and no evidence. In other words a smear piece.

The intention was to make the question of Zelaya "moot", as Clinton herself said. That clearly indicates an anti-democratic propaganda and military police training operation (the police training is also a fact). The article has extensive links supporting this.

you are taking things way out of context. Show me where the state dept told civics groups to line up for the government, as far as the question of "Zelaya being moot" the elections were scheduled in November before and were held. One would think that the state department would have no justification for doing anything after the elections, or are you saying we should have gone in and put him in office even after an election that he wasn't even in? That we should have actually done a coup?

which is why you have no detailed defense to refer to; Its why you could only bring yourself to skim the Nation article.

She actively discouraged Zelaya from returning to his own country. Meanwhile she is very cozy with the idea of coup thugs running amok, running elections in fact.

There is no reason to believe Clinton wasn't pursuing the same kind of policy as in Haiti, when the Obama administration sent in Marines to "escort" their president out of office. This never happens with embattled leaders who put their countries up for sale to western banks... then its about "protecting democracy" and sending military aid and militarizing the police force against the population.

This is about a foreign policy that sends moderate, elected politicians into exile.

Cozy with the idea of coup thugs running amok? You don't think you are putting words into her mouth there do you? Discouraging him from returning to the courts and the congress and the military that led the coup? What exactly do you think should have happened? Seriously, tell us all what should have happened?

our influence and even our military to put him back into office for the what, 5 months until the next election over riding what the elected congress and courts of Honduras and the military wanted? Should we have supported and financed a popular wave to put him back in power knowing full well the courts, congress and military would be against us and that in just a few month the people would choose someone different as he couldn't even run? In a sea of bad answers you seem to believe that there is a good answer so lets hear it, cmon now, we are all waiting for your expert foreign policy. You may say, hey, I'm not an expert, but I know wrong from right and I would say ok, I can understand that. But if you cant come up with a actual realistic viable alternative then what the hell are you doing criticizing someone for something that you don't have the answer for. The possibility of you answering this is inversely proportional to the possibility of you having put me on ignore so I wont hold my breath hearing back from you at all. I fully realize that all some people can do is throw stones sad as that is.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/06/honduras-no-aborda-violaciones-ddhh-tras-golpe/

Amnesty International has accused the Honduran authorities of failing to address serious human rights violations that followed the coup d’etat of 28 June 2009, when ex-President Manuel Zelaya was forced from power. Since new president Porfirio Lobo took office in January, police and military officers responsible for mass arrests, beatings and torture in the wake of the coup have not been brought to justice.

no where, and I mean no where did I defend any crooked election. I just asked what should have been done and you have not been able thus far to answer it.

You take a situation someone was involved in, attribute to them all the bad things that happened with no evidence whatsoever or you just take things out of context to achieve that, then push that narrative. You even twisted my position to one where I support what has happened in Honduras where I have done no such thing. I questioned your narrative that Clinton was responsible and you turned it into I support what happened there. Classic smear. So, once again, what do you think should have happened there? As an intellectual I mean?