Supreme Court Gives Opinion: Zelaya Will Face Trial for Treason if He Returns

They could have tried Zelaya. Instead, they got the military to shoot up his house, arrest him at gunpoint and fly him out of the country on plane with blackened windows--terrorizing him and his family--and then declare martial law to terrorize everybody else. Where is THAT in the Honduran Constitution? Where does it say that, if the president breaks a law, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, he gets removed from the country at gunpoint?

The coupsters had plenty of chances to prove their case against Zelaya. He flew back to Honduras, and the military blocked his plane from landing. He tried to re-enter overland and the military blocked the roads. Why didn't they let him back in, arrest him and try him? Why didn't they do that to begin with?

The answer is obvious: They have no case! It is trumped up bullshit. In fact, it was trumped up after he was kidnapped and removed by force. No case was ever brought against him when he was in the country. He had no trial, no lawyer, no opportunity to defend himself. For these rightwing bastards to NOW maintain that he has to face trial is absurd. THEY are the ones who should be on trial. THEY are the ones who have committed treason.

Furthermore, I know what their "treason" charge amounts to. There is a provision in the Honduran Constitution that forbids anyone to propose extending the president's term of office (lifting the one term limit). This provision was written by Reagan's henchmen to enhance the power of the military. But, okay, it's the current law of the land. The thing is, Zelaya NEVER PROPOSED LIFTING HIS TERM LIMIT. He merely proposed an ADVISORY vote of the people--with no force of law--on whether or not they would like to hold a Constitutional assembly to discuss and possibly revise the entire Constitution. That's it. And even if he had proposed lifting the term limit, "treason" is a far stretch as a charge. Imagine here if someone proposed, say, eliminating the Senate, or rescinding the presidential term limit (which was imposed late in our history, in the 1950s, by the Republicans, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again). (FDR had run for and won four terms in office.) Would it be treason to propose amending the Constitution? What kind of free speech do they have in Honduras anyway, that someone can't propose changing the Constitution by a vote of the people without being tried for treason?

These people are crazy extremists. They are the ones who need to be disempowered and removed. The only thing keeping them in power is the U.S. taxpayer funded Honduran military. They need martial law to stay in power. That sums them up.

widely attended by many, many Hondurans who traveled for days to the Nicaraguan border to be there when his wife, pregnant daughter, mother and mother-in-law came to meet him as he attempted to come back into Honduras, stopping and talking at length with a Honduran general before being TURNED BACK.

They could have lept upon him then and hauled his ass off to jail to await that trial the Court threatens. What, was everyone in the bogus government just way too busy?

If they had the means to try him earlier they wouldn't have hesitated to do that, with flourish, fanfare, lotsa noise in the media, and the payday when they could throw him in the slammer to stay, to really get his comeuppence.

He didn't do the time because he didn't do the crime.

They are getting desperate. They know their case is silly, is a sham. I hope this doesn't mean they will have him come to turn himself in and then kill him, claiming a lone wolf just stepped forward, like Jack Ruby, and did him in.

I hope he will somehow have better protection than that, but who on earth can know?

go away Mel!!

terrorize him and his family, put him on a secret flight out of the country, declare martial law, beat up and arrest reporters, shut down the media, fill the streets with troops and start shooting protestors with live ammunition?

Great law they have there! It would be anybody's rightful, patriotic duty to try to change it, I'd say.

It is composed of 100-percent Scalias. Some court that is!