WikiLeaks expose shows US complicity in Honduran coup

[RLENT]

And you actually believed our government when they said them Honduran elections were really free, fair and legitimate ? ....

Tegucigalpa: Ousted Honduran president Mel Zelaya has said that one of the US diplomatic cables published by whistleblower website Wikileaks demonstrates Washington's "complicity" with the June 2009 coup against his government.

The cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events of June 28, 2009, Zelaya said on Monday in a statement issued from exile in the Dominican Republic.

"The embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch," US Ambassador Hugo Llorens said in a July 24, 2009, message from Tegucigalpa to Washington.

"No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and (congress speaker Roberto) Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate," the US envoy wrote.

"This document implicates ... the US, which, knowing of the crime, justified it and supported the criminals," the former Honduran president said.

While criticising Zelaya's ouster, Washington did not cut off aid to Honduras and subsequently deemed the November 2009 elections administered by the Micheletti regime to be free and fair, despite low turnout and widespread repression prior to the balloting.

The US recognised the winner, Porfirio Lobo, as Honduras' legitimate president and has pressed other nations to do the same, but several Latin American countries - including Brazil - have refused.

WikiLeaks expose shows US complicity in Honduran coup

 

[Turtle]

Well, I'm not sure that the opinions of a US envoy in the aftermath of his "turf" being mussed without his prior knowledge and assent, and the allegations of a disgruntled former worker (Zelaya) who was trying to rewrite his country's constitution should be evidence of much of anything. This is just some guy in exile pointing to WikiLeaks and whining.

However, considering that Zelaya has tried to thwart US policy every chance he's had, including hosting a meeting of the Organization of American States where he spearheaded the OAS to at least provisionally remove the long-standing US-backed ban on Cuba, frustrating US efforts to maintain the political quarantine on the Castro regime, and in general allying himself with Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, all of which are headed by regimes considered by Washington to be hostile to US interests in Latin America, it should come as no surprise that the US not only had knowledge and were complicit in the overthrow of a government, but almost certainly orchestrated it.

I, for one, am just shocked that the US could possibly be involved in any way in the internal affairs of another country, much less in being complicit in a coup. Even though the "official" US line is that the US attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince the Honduran military not to proceed with the coup, that's no evidence they US knew about it before it happened.

The US maintains a small military presence there, 600 or so troops, which is a relatively major military presence in the scope and scale of Honduras, has a close relationship with the Honduran military where joint exercises at the air base down there are carried out on a regular basis, and funds a great deal of the Honduran military via foreign aid. Given the intimate and long-standing ties between the US and the Honduran military, the record over many decades of US-backed coups and military dictatorships in the country and the region, and the ongoing efforts to destabilize the regime of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, it is a near-lock that US played a major role in the removal of one of Chavez’s allies in Latin America.

Incidentally, it's not officially a coup. If it had been a coup, that would have brought into various aspects of the Foreign Assistance Act, where, among others, no US aid can be given to a country whose elected head of government is removed by a military coup. Plus, the US would have to at least temporarily recall its ambassador to Honduras. And, the US military presence in the country would have to dramatically altered. Officially, it was a simple "illegal transfer of power", not a coup.

 

[RLENT]

Well, I'm not sure that the opinions of a US envoy in the aftermath of his "turf" being mussed without his prior knowledge and assent and the allegations of a disgruntled former worker (Zelaya) .....

Former worker ?

Funny ........... I thought that, until he (Zelaya) was illegally deposed ........ he was the duly-elected leader of a sovereign nation ...

who was trying to rewrite his country's constitution ....

Rewrite it how ? ... by having called for a non-binding poll as to whether it should be amended ?

should be evidence of much of anything.

Wikileaks Cablegate only served to confirm what was already known and has been reported on - the following is from a report from Roger D. Harris, published by Global Research, back in August 31, 2009:

The Honduran Coup And US Involvement

From afar, the June 28 coup in Honduras might appear to be one of those perennial power struggles among corrupt strongmen in a distant "Banana Republic." After all, democratically elected and now deposed Pres. Zelaya and coup leader Micheletti came from the same political party. But the picture is quite different for those of us with the opportunity to have contacts with the popular civic groups in Honduras.

I am with the Marin Task Force on the Americas, a 25-year-old human rights organization. Two of our members are now in Honduras on delegations, and we have been in contact with other activists reporting back from what is alarmingly becoming an increasingly violent situation

Zelaya's "Crime"

Here are the words of our friend Lisa Sullivan, a lay member of the Catholic Maryknoll order working with the poor in Latin America. Lisa had gone to Honduras just a month before the coup at the invitation of a leading human rights group representing families of those disappeared in the previous military dictatorship in the 1980s. They went to a meeting with Honduran President Zelaya.

"It was not just an ordinary meeting, but one in a series of gatherings between the president, some of his ministers, and leaders of most of Honduras' social movements. It was a six-hour, heart-to-heart, head-to-head real dialogue on deep issues such as whether to continue with the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), to keep the Palmerola military base open to U.S. soldiers, how to create a sustainable water system, whether to pull Honduran troops from the School of the Americas. I have been in Latin America for 32 years, but this kind of president-to-the-people consultation was a first. And, it made me realize that something very interesting was happening in Honduras."

A month later Pres. Zelaya was kidnapped out of Honduras and civil liberties suspended. Zelaya's "crime" was that he threatened the privileged position of the elites in his country. With over 65 percent of the Honduran population below the poverty level (U.S. AID), the Zelaya administration was beginning to listen to the social movements and give their needs consideration.

Zelaya had raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided milk for the babies and pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving light bulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, made more scholarships available for students, and passed legislation to protect forests from logging.

U.S. Involvement

The U.S. State Department freely admitted it had consulted with the perpetrators prior to the coup (Wall Street Journal, 6/29/09). With the U.S. as Honduras' largest trading partner, its army heavily subsidized by the U.S., and some of the coup leaders including the head of the military trained in the U.S. School of the Americas, at least some tacit involvement in the coup by U.S. is evident. The popular saying among Latin Americans is "The Honduran army breathes through the noses of its U.S. advisers."

But the world is a different place than it was in 1954 with the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala or even the Nixon-Kissinger coup in Chile in 1973, which brought the reign of terror under Pinochet to Chile. Attempted coups with U.S. backing against democratically elected and popular leaders failed in Venezuela in 2002 and in Bolivia in 2008 (but succeeded in Haiti in 2004).

Internationally the coup in Honduras has received universal approbation. The United Nations and the Organization of American States have both unanimously condemned the illegal coup and called for the immediate restoration of the constitutional government.

Specter of Repression

If this coup is not overturned, we fear Honduras will return to a period when disappearances and arbitrary arrests of those willing to speak out against injustice were common place. Such fears are not unwarranted as repression by the coup government escalates against the popular movement.

The Huffington Post (7/23/09) reported the coup government has been responsible for the targeted killing of at least four individuals, including two political opposition leaders. The death toll, all of them Zelaya supporters, has since more than doubled. Over a hundred people have been assaulted by the armed forces, and over a thousand of those associated with the social movements have been illegally detained. Press and media outlets have been shut down, while journalists have been arrested and detained.

The U.S. has partially gone along with the international community in opposition to the coup. Pres. Obama has publicly denounced the action, calling it a "coup," and withdrew some U.S. military and economic aid to Honduras. Now is the time for the U.S. to take leadership and suspend all military, diplomatic, and economic relations with the coup government in Honduras, as is mandated by U.S. law when a coup has occurred, until the entire constitutional government in reinstated in Honduras.

The Honduran Coup And US Involvement

Yup .... exporting freedom and democracy .... it's what we do best ....

 

[Turtle]

Former worker ?

No, disgruntled former worker. The "disgruntled" part, in conjunction with the "worker" part, is key to the silliness and humor of the statement.

Funny ........... I thought that, until he (Zelaya) was illegally deposed ........ he was the duly-elected leader of a sovereign nation ...

Well, there's duly-elected, and then there's duly-elected. You actually believed our government when they said them Honduran elections were really free, fair and legitimate ?

My main point, tho, was that the cables really didn't show much of anything. All of the quotes were from Zelaya making accusations asserting the cables proved this or that.
For example, "The cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events of June 28, 2009, Zelaya said on Monday in a statement issued from exile in the Dominican Republic."

See, it's Zelaya saying, not Wikileaks or the cable itself saying, but Zelaya saying that the cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events, not the cables saying it. It's misleading to take an assertion of Zelaya and turn it into this kind of no-doubter headline.

The quotes from the cable itself were about the Honduran military, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran National Congress, not the US, and were sent a month after the fact. Zelaya's assertion is the cable is proof of US involvement, or at least foreknowledge, of the coup, but it's really not evidence of that at all. It's a statement of embassy perspective a month after the events happened.

"Zelaya said", isn't evidence of anything. The article keeps using Zelaya's quotes, referencing a US diplomat's complaints after-the-fact, as somehow being evidence the US being complicit in the coup. It's a "It's true, because I say it is, therefore it is true," kind of thing. The fact is the US was involved (duh), but isn't substantiated at all in the cables. It's only substantiated in Zelaya's assertions. It's like Zelaya saying, "See? See? See!?! Llorens agrees with me! So it's true!"

Rewrite it how ? ... by having called for a non-binding poll as to whether it should be amended ?

He was well beyond opinion polls. He was gearing up for the long term. Given a little more time to build his power base, he'd have had term limits deleted from the constitution.

Wikileaks Cablegate only served to confirm what was already known and has been reported on - the following is from a report from Roger D. Harris, published by Global Research, back in August 31, 2009:

Frankly, I wouldn't pay much attention to Honduras at all, if it were not for the fact that one of my cousin's wife is from down there and gives a little education on life in the region.

Yup .... exporting freedom and democracy .... it's what we do best ....

The US has a long history of putting people we want in power in the various Banana Republics (and elsewhere), and then removing them when they get too big for their britches. It's a history that isn't likely to change much anytime soon.

I do find it interesting that the release of these diplomatic cables have been downplayed by world leaders and ambassadors pretty much right across the board. A couple of them could be trouble (Saudi's and others working privately with the US to deal with the Iran issue, and the blatant Libyan coverup claiming that US missiles were actually Libyan missiles, which will fuel Al Qaeda like crazy), but most were dismissed out of hand. Putin flatly stated that the airing of diplomatic laundry is a nasty business and shouldn't be done. Even Iran's Amudijinutjob said 'there's nothing to see here, move along.' They all know their diplomats say the same things about us, and about each other. They all know how the game is played. They also know that ambassador's tend to put sensational tidbits into their communications to the mother ship back home in order to get noticed.

 

[RLENT]

No, disgruntled former worker. The "disgruntled" part, in conjunction with the "worker" part, is key to the silliness and humor of the statement.

Humor .... ah, yes .... got it.

Well, there's duly-elected, and then there's duly-elected. You actually believed our government when they said them Honduran elections were really free, fair and legitimate ?

Sorry - not quite sure I'm following you here - try a blunter instrument perhaps ....

My main point, tho, was that the cables really didn't show much of anything.

For anyone reading here, who may be mistakenly inclined to actually accept the above statement at face value, and as true, below is the link for the cable (singular) being referred to:

Cable Viewer

It contains a good bit of detail and a fairly insightful analysis of the situation and events.

You can read it for yourself and make you own determination as to whether or not it "really didn't show much of anything" .....

All of the quotes were from Zelaya making accusations asserting the cables proved this or that.

Get it right - first off: Not all of quotes were from Zelaya .... (the US Ambassador was quoted as well, in fact in the part of the article I quoted, the Ambassador was quoted more than Zelaya)

Secondly, the quotes of Zelaya referred to ONE cable showing complicity.

For example, "The cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events of June 28, 2009, Zelaya said on Monday in a statement issued from exile in the Dominican Republic."

An United States Ambassador to a foreign nation is, for all intents and purposes, a representative, an embodiment, and an extension of the US Government.

If a United States Ambassador on the ground is aware of certain facts, then the US Government is, de facto, aware of them.

Additionally, since a diplomatic cable, is a form of communication between separate parts or portions of the government, we can safely assume that more than just a single individual within the US Government knew.

Therefore, the statement is correct - the US Government did know the true nature of the events - as is clearly evidenced by the contents of the cable.

See, it's Zelaya saying, not Wikileaks or the cable itself saying, but Zelaya saying that the cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events, not the cables saying it.

..... apparently you didn't even read the cable ....

It's misleading to take an assertion of Zelaya and turn it into this kind of no-doubter headline.

Read the cable.

The quotes from the cable itself were about the Honduran military, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran National Congress, not the US, and were sent a month after the fact.

So ?

You mention that "month after the fact" thing like it is somehow significant - nothing in Zelaya's assertion stated when the US goverment knew - just that it did.

Zelaya's assertion is the cable is proof of US involvement,

Not quite an accurate characterization on your part.

I believe what he said was complicity ....

Complicity occurs when one has knowledge of events (illegal, unethical, criminal, etc.) ..... and then one either assents, or fails to act to make things right.

In the case of a crime, failure to report the crime and any knowledge you might have about it to the authorities, would constitute being complicit.

In the case of illegal coup, being complicit would involve, among other things, allowing it to stand, recognizing the illegitimate (new) government, not taking actions as a nation to condemn it, etc.

In essence, complicity is allowing criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them.

or at least foreknowledge, of the coup,

Please point out anything in what I quoted (of Zelaya's statements), or in the linked article itself, where Zelaya said the US had foreknowledge. Didn't happen.

but it's really not evidence of that at all.

The cable in question is not evidence of foreknowledge - but coupled with the USG's actions since, it is evidence of complicity.

It's a statement of embassy perspective a month after the events happened.

Precisely.

"Zelaya said", isn't evidence of anything. The article keeps using Zelaya's quotes, referencing a US diplomat's complaints after-the-fact, as somehow being evidence the US being complicit in the coup.

It seems that you believe that complicity requires either knowledge or participation at the time of the event - it does not.

Complicity can, and often does, occur after the fact (of the event, in this case, a coup) - read the following, particularly the section entitled "Common Law" here:

Complicity

It's a "It's true, because I say it is, therefore it is true," kind of thing.

Oh, we'll get to that aspect of things in just a minute .....

The fact is the US was involved (duh), but isn't substantiated at all in the cables.

The cable substantiates complicity after the fact (of the coup)

But in the second article that I referenced it mentioned that State had "freely admitted it had consulted with the perpetrators prior to the coup ....." (Wall Street Journal, 6/29/09)

It's only substantiated in Zelaya's assertions.

Direct US involvement in terms planning, supporting, or executing the coup isn't substantiated in any of Zelaya's assertions that I've quoted (nor is it even asserted) .... except that the extent of any US involvement is being complicit after the fact.....

It's like Zelaya saying, "See? See? See!?! Llorens agrees with me! So it's true!"

Not really ...

He was well beyond opinion polls. He was gearing up for the long term. Given a little more time to build his power base, he'd have had term limits deleted from the constitution.

Do you have any factual proof that this was so ?

Or is this just one of them "It's true, because I say it is, therefore it is true" kind of things ?

The ambassador's assessment in the cable characterized this correctly for exactly what it is: a supposition, by Zelaya's political opponents, with no evidence or proof to back it up.

In fact, it even mentions that there is no record or assertion that Zelaya ever even said that this is what he intended to do .....

As you so rightly pointed out just a moment ago, simply because you or anyone else assert or say it, doesn't make it so ....

Frankly, I wouldn't pay much attention to Honduras at all, if it were not for the fact that one of my cousin's wife is from down there and gives a little education on life in the region.

Well, while I certainly appreciate that you have some insights vis-a-vis your cousin's wife (was first, second, or third ?) ..... if you don't mind, I'll stick the ambassador's insights on the matter ... as I believe them to be an honest assessment and correct.

The US has a long history of putting people we want in power in the various Banana Republics (and elsewhere), and then removing them when they get too big for their britches.

Like I said .... exporting freedom and democracy .....

It's a history that isn't likely to change much anytime soon.

I'm not so concerned about changing (past) history as I am about changing our current and future operating basis ....

 

[Turtle]

You're missing my whole point and instead want to get dragged down into a quagmire of some sort. In the context of your original post, and within the context of the headline (and subject thread) that was created because of the article, my statement that the cable really doesn't say much of anything it true, because the article itself references almost none of the cable. The only thing the article uses to justify the headline is what Zelaya says the cable says. Go back and read the article again. It's nothing more than he-said, he-said, and it's Zelaya who is doing all the saying. My contention is, within the scope of the article, and your post, what Zelaya and the Ambassador says means squat. The article takes an accusation by Zelaya, and turns it into fact, without using any evidence whatsoever.


"..... apparently you didn't even read the cable .... "

Actually, I did read the cable. But the cable wasn't presented here as part of your original post, so my comments were restricted to the thread itself, rather than something the article did not reference directly.

Originally Posted by Turtle
Well, there's duly-elected, and then there's duly-elected. You actually believed our government when they said them Honduran elections were really free, fair and legitimate ?
Sorry - not quite sure I'm following you here - try a blunter instrument perhaps ....

There hasn't been a really free, fair and legitimate election in Honduras since the Mayans were in diapers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
or at least foreknowledge, of the coup,

Please point out anything in what I quoted (of Zelaya's statements), or in the linked article itself, where Zelaya said the US had foreknowledge. Didn't happen.

"The cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events of June 28, 2009, Zelaya said on Monday in a statement issued from exile in the Dominican Republic."

Everything is past tense, implying the US knew, either beforehand or at the time of the events, the true nature of the events.

I'm trying to stay within the context and the bounds of the article itself. I believe that I made my thoughts perfectly clear that there is little doubt in my mind that the US orchestrated the coup, just like is has many times in the past, and like it probably will again. My initial reply in this thread was 5 paragraphs, 4 of which stated my case as to why I believe the US was behind it. The first paragraph dealt with the truly pathetic journalism in the matter, using largely Zelaya's assertions as justifications for the headlined conclusion as a statement of fact.

And really, the cable itself isn't conclusive evidence that the US knew anything. The Ambassador is making a case for the illegality of the removal of Zelaya. There is no admission of guilt or knowledge of complicity in the cable, least not that I could find.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Frankly, I wouldn't pay much attention to Honduras at all, if it were not for the fact that one of my cousin's wife is from down there and gives a little education on life in the region.

Well, while I certainly appreciate that you have some insights vis-a-vis your cousin's wife (was first, second, or third ?) ..... if you don't mind, I'll stick the ambassador's insights on the matter ... as I believe them to be an honest assessment and correct.

I don't mind at all. But please do read that I wrote, and not what you think I meant. I never said I had any insight from my cousin's wife on the matter. Didn't even imply it. My cousin educating me on what life is like in the Central American region really has nothing to do with the ambassador's insight or assessments and whether you believe them or not, and certainly doesn't give me any insights into Zelaya's removal from office or who played what role in it. She and I haven't even discussed it at all. I mentioned it for the sole purpose of letting you, or anyone who cares, know that if it were not for her, I could care less about Honduras, and wouldn't have otherwise been keeping up with happenings down there much at all. But I'm repeating myself, since I said that the first time.

As for the "your cousin's wife (was first, second, or third ?)" I don't know what that means. I have several cousins. My aunt (my mother's sister) in Tuscon has 4 kids. Caroline is in Seattle, Ann is in Washington, D.C., Patrick is (officially) an AP photographer who is sometimes out of Dallas, and Bruce is the one with the Honduran wife, he's a computer geek, but on a large scale, and lives in Louisville when they're in the States. I have another cousin, Richard, my mom's brother's kid, who is in the Army, home for the first time in years, after serving in the Middle East and in Haiti. I have 4 other cousins besides, them, plus there are my cousins on Hugh's side.

uote: Originally Posted by Turtle
He was well beyond opinion polls. He was gearing up for the long term. Given a little more time to build his power base, he'd have had term limits deleted from the constitution.
Do you have any factual proof that this was so ?

I don't think so. Other than what I've read in the newspapers, and knowing how things tend to progress with some of the powers that be in Banana Republics, it's not hard to see a pattern in development.

Or is this just one of them "It's true, because I say it is, therefore it is true" kind of things ?

I don't think so.

The ambassador's assessment in the cable characterized this correctly for exactly what it is: a supposition, by Zelaya's political opponents, with no evidence or proof to back it up.

Do you have any factual proof that this was so? Are you certain there is no evidence to back it up? Both sides of tat sword are sharp, eh?

In fact, it even mentions that there is no record or assertion that Zelaya ever even said that this is what he intended to do .....

Oh, well, then it must be true.


"As you so rightly pointed out just a moment ago, simply because you or anyone else assert or say it, doesn't make it so .... "

The glaring exception, of course, being the Honduran Ambassador.

 

[RLENT]

Incidentally, it's not officially a coup.

LOL .... seriously - you're kidding right ?

Promulgating and forwarding "government speak" now are we ?

What do you call it when the military of a country arrests the duly-elected leader of a country and then illegally places him in exile ?

If it had been a coup, that would have brought into various aspects of the Foreign Assistance Act, where, among others, no US aid can be given to a country whose elected head of government is removed by a military coup.

The above assumes that the United States government always follows it's own rules ..... or acts in a correct manner which comports with the actuality of a situation.

Shyeah, right .... like we know that always happens ....

Hell, they can't even adhere to and follow the Constitution here in the US ....

Plus, the US would have to at least temporarily recall its ambassador to Honduras. And, the US military presence in the country would have to dramatically altered. Officially, it was a simple "illegal transfer of power", not a coup.

"War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - George Orwell, 1984

 

[RLENT]

You're missing my whole point and instead want to get dragged down into a quagmire of some sort.

Well ... just stop pulling me down there then ....

In the context of your original post, and within the context of the headline (and subject thread) that was created because of the article, my statement that the cable really doesn't say much of anything it true, because the article itself references almost none of the cable.

Ok, so we'll give them two demerits for writing what looks like an AP feed of breaking news ..... and for failing to write an in-depth Woodward and Bernstein style treatise (within 72 hours of Zelay's statement on the previous Monday)

FWIW:
What the article said:

"The embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch," US Ambassador Hugo Llorens said in a July 24, 2009, message from Tegucigalpa to Washington.

There is no source attribution or claim for the above quotation in the article indicating that Mel Zelaya said this - one might reasonably assume that the journalist who wrote the article actually read the cable - particularly when you consider the following:

What the cable said:

"The Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch ...." [copied and pasted directly from the cable itself, emphasis and highlighting mine]

Word for word accurate, although they did miss capitalizing embassy. Regardless, if it is the case that Zelaya was the source of the Ambassador's quotes for the article, it appears that Zelaya can at least read and correctly quote something.

What the article said:

"No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and (congress speaker Roberto) Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate," the US envoy wrote.

What the cable said:

"No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and Micheletti's ascendance as "interim president" was totally illegitimate." [copied and pasted directly from the cable itself, emphasis and highlighting mine]

Again, the reporting in the article as to what the cable says is totally and completely accurate, to the extent that the article quotes the cable.

Further, your previous assertion of "The article is just quoting what Zelaya said the cable said ...." doesn't appear to hold any water - since there is nothing in the article anywhere to indicate that Zelaya said what you allege, or was the source of the Ambassador's quotes from the cable for the article.

While it certainly might be bad journalistic form to quote someone and fail to attribute the exact reference you used to obtain the quote, it nevertheless remains a fact: the article quoted the Ambassador's remarks in the cable accurately.

The only thing the article uses to justify the headline is what Zelaya says the cable says.

This is an assumption on your part - because it assumes that whoever wrote the article did not do any due diligence, or read the cable itself ..... then drawing their own conclusion about the merits of Zelaya's allegation.

Go back and read the article again.

Gladly.

It's nothing more than he-said, he-said, and it's Zelaya who is doing all the saying.

Factually incorrect - because the article accurately quotes the US Ambassador - and he wuz doin' some "sayin'" of his own.

My contention is, within the scope of the article, and your post, what Zelaya and the Ambassador says means squat.

Oh, I totally understand, believe me - I really do .....

The article takes an accusation by Zelaya, and turns it into fact, without using any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the accurately quoted statements of the Ambassador .... and the conduct of the US Government since the coup.

Actually, I did read the cable.

Well ..... that is somewhat disturbing.

But the cable wasn't presented here as part of your original post, so my comments were restricted to the thread itself, rather than something the article did not reference directly.

Ahh .... I see .... you were talking merely about the article .... where I am actually talking about the events that the article is about and what actually occurred on the ground.

There hasn't been a really free, fair and legitimate election in Honduras since the Mayans were in diapers.

I wasn't aware that Mayans made it a practice to hold elections (let alone free, fair, and legitimate ones) .... sounds like a fascinating aspect of their culture. Perhaps you could refer me to some material on this ?

"The cable shows the US government knew the true nature of the events of June 28, 2009, Zelaya said on Monday in a statement issued from exile in the Dominican Republic."

Everything is past tense, implying the US knew, either beforehand or at the time of the events, the true nature of the events.

Nope - that's merely an assumption by yourself of what the statement says. The statement is currently in past tense because the event being referred to - the US Government's knowledge of, and lack of action regarding, was in the past (although it is certainly continues to the present) - when currently viewed and considered from now.

I'm trying to stay within the context and the bounds of the article itself.

I impose no such limitations on myself - my original posting of the article was intended to facilitate and spur discussion of the actual events .... not to engage in some sort of pedantic exercise regarding the merits of the journalism of the article.

I believe that I made my thoughts perfectly clear that there is little doubt in my mind that the US orchestrated the coup, just like is has many times in the past, and like it probably will again.

Yes, you did.

My initial reply in this thread was 5 paragraphs, 4 of which stated my case as to why I believe the US was behind it.

True enough.

The first paragraph dealt with the truly pathetic journalism in the matter, using largely Zelaya's assertions as justifications for the headlined conclusion as a statement of fact.

I understand that that is your take on the matter - however reasonable people might disagree. Suffice it to say that I don't see it quite the same as you.

And really, the cable itself isn't conclusive evidence that the US knew anything.

Hehehehe ..... yeah .... please do not look behind the curtain ....

Unfortunately, the facts don't support your assertion above.

The Ambassador is making a case for the illegality of the removal of Zelaya.

That's true - and he did so by knowing and expounding certain facts and drawing conclusions, based on those facts ...... while some of the conclusions are open to debate .... the facts entirely indisputable - otherwise they wouldn't be facts.

There is no admission of guilt or knowledge of complicity in the cable, least not that I could find.

Well it's certainly true that complicity occurred after the fact of the cable - whether there was complicity prior to that, the cable itself does not show.

As for US Government officials providing admissions of guilt in diplomatic cables, I suspect that they probably tend to try and avoid such.

 

[Turtle]

OK, here's the deal, and the reason for my first initial paragraph... I see the thread subject of...
WikiLeaks expose shows US complicity in Honduran coup

I expect to open the post and read something that says exactly that, that something that WikiLeaks has exposed will show US complicity in the Honduran coup. I did not find any proof at all in the post (the article). All that I found in the article was Zelaya asserting there was proof. But whoever wrote the piece neglected to include any of that proof. The quotes from the ambassador were used to support Zelaya's , but the quotes offered no proof whatsoever of US complicity in the matter. None.

My original, initial paragraph stands as written.


As I said in my second post in this thread...

The quotes from the cable itself were about the Honduran military, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran National Congress, not the US, and were sent a month after the fact. Zelaya's assertion is the cable is proof of US involvement, or at least foreknowledge, of the coup, but it's really not evidence of that at all. It's a statement of embassy perspective a month after the events happened.

If the ambassador were talking about the US Supreme Court, the US National Congress, and the US military, then you'd have something right there, that would be stone-cold proof. But he wasn't. You wonder why I point out that the cable happened a month after the fact. Well, it's because the cable was sent a month after the fact. If the cable, in all of it's detailed glory were sent the same day, or a few days after the coup, that would certainly go a long way towards the US being complicit at the time of the coup. But it was sent a month later, giving the ambassador ample time to do some investigating and figure out what the heck happened. The cable in it's entirety doesn't admit any complicity in the coup. There's simply no evidence in the cable, and certainly not in the article, that the US was complicit in the Honduran coup.

That's all I'm saying. Within the scope of what you posted, and even in the scope of the cable itself, there's no proof at all, it's simply not there.

That doesn't mean for a second that I don't believe the US wasn't involved, it's just that the article falls woefully short of proving anything of substance.


Maybe my problem is that I don't get all giddy with glee whenever the American government does something bad and we can nail 'em on it in fine embarrassing and humiliating fashion so that we as a country and look bad or inept in the eyes of the world. My another problem I have is WikiLeaks and their stated goals and what they actually do. Private comments of diplomats candidly characterizing foreign leaders in sometimes unflattering terms is not part of WikiLeaks' stated goals.

Some people think WikiLeaks and it's founder are heroes performing some great altruistic service, but the reality is they are nothing more than a transnational enemy combatant performing espionage during a time of war, and should be treated as such.

What we are seeing with WikiLeaks is very akin to what we are seeing with militant Islam and the War On Terror, which is a non-state entity taking on some of the powers and influence previously accorded only to nation states. WikiLeaks is acting like the intelligence agency of a nation hostile to (if not at war) with the United States. They, like the terrorists, have declared a modern form of war against us, and are waging it just like the KGB would. They are violating our secrets and publicizing them for their own ideological ends, which are inimical to our own national security.

I think WikiLeaks should be treated in the same manner in which they are acting, which is that of a hostile foreign intelligence agency at war with the United States. Espionage charges, counterintelligence, information warfare, and even, if if necessary, "wet work" targeted assassinations. That's the game they have chosen to play. And by choosing to play in the big leagues, they have forfeited their right to the protections accorded civilians.

 

[greg334]

Turtle,
Do you think that the KGB would have risked its credibility among other nations by openly publishing information they obtained?

 

[Turtle]

Turtle,
Do you think that the KGB would have risked its credibility among other nations by openly publishing information they obtained?

Since turnabout is fair play, they would be unlikely to release stuff, because they know it could happen to them. The KGB, CIA and other intelligence organizations collected and used data for their own purposes, and releasing it publicly probably wouldn't have done them much good. There have been cases where things have been released publicly, of course, but only if releasing it was an advantage.