Honduras exception

The Star’s Editorial on Friday, July 3 featured “Four nations without the freedoms we cherish.” You hit the mark on three of the four: Iran, Zimbabwe, and North Korea.

I can’t even begin to imagine how terrible life is in any one of these countries. However, I think you erred in including Honduras with the other three.

It is true that the freely elected president of Honduras was removed from office by a military coup. However, your brief text below the photograph failed any mention of the fact that President Manuel Zelaya has been trying to set himself up as president-for-life, and thus as a virtual dictator. He has been attempting a Hugo Chavez-style takeover. The duly elected Congress of Honduras and the Supreme Court of that nation have ruled this to be illegal, and Zelaya has ignored them. He has been trying unilaterally to force a major revision of the Constitution of Honduras to allow himself to run again. The current Constitution bans this.

A military coup is certainly not a desirable method to resist such changes, but in a country like Honduras, it may be the only effective way to block such illegal actions by the president. This is not a country like the U.S. with a strong foundation of democracy.

It is a shame and irresponsible that you have chosen to put Honduras in the same category as Iran, Zimbabwe, and North Korea.

Carl E. Frahme

Gardner

Comments

[Kee]

Not me Dan, and BTW, Castro, Chavez, and Yomama all agree that Zelaya should be put back in office....great minds think alike you know......

[Dan Beyer]

Is ANYONE in the Kansas City area surprised the Star's Editorial Board failed to mention that Zelaya was trying to set himself as a dictator???

[pmcw]

"It is true that the freely elected president of Honduras was removed from office by a military coup."

That is not true. The Honduran Congress voted, in line with the country's constitution, that the president broke the law. The vote was then reviewed by the Honduran supreme court to insure it was in line with the constitution. They had the choice of arresting him or sending him out of the country.

What would have been a coup is if the military sided with the president and allowed him to maintain his office. This is a sovereign country acting within the boundaries of its constitution. We have absolutely no right to criticize or portray its actions as a coup.

[EL]

I agree.
It is much like those who call Bush a Nazi or Obama a Muslim fanatic.