Mr. Zelaya was deposed legally following the constitution of Honduras. Do you think the guy would have left on his own accord? Each country has its own constitution – don't just apply yours.

http://patdollard.com/2009/06/honduran-president-was-ousted-for-illegally-amending-the-constitution-to-extend-his-rule-just-as-supporter-chavez-did-and-supporter-obama-seeks-to/

Please read the comments by Rob, Ivan the Kafir and Mark.

That insane logic would mean that no one is allowed to report about China unless they lived in China, that no one is allowed to talk about Russia unless they lived in Russia, or the equally insane, "I would never allow another person from another country to bad mouth Bush unless they lived here" which is equally crazy, giving us a world in which most citizens cannot comment about most stories, and most reporters can only cover where they live locally — say goodbye to anyone covering glboal things like economics, environment, etc. A person from another country has EVERY RIGHT to criticize Bush (or Obama for that matter) based on information and analysis…they do not have to live in the US, what a crazy idea.

Equally crazy is the idea that the Coup was ok because the supreme court says he broke the law. The bias of these people is evident when they talk about Zelaya's clear "intentions" to 1.have a referendum whether to 2. later have a vote whether to 3. later, based on the democratic outcome of 2., explore changing the constitution.

The evidence is that the Supreme Court's "evidence" is probably very minimal, maybe zero. Otherwise, why not arrest him? Why not charge him? Why not bring the evidence to a court of law? They clear have NO hesitation against using troops with guns…that they did…clearly if they wanted to they could have brought charges, if they thought they have real, meaningful evidence. The constitution does not say, "if you are *accused* of breaking the law, then you get thrown out of the country by gunned armed men, without any trial"

This does not mean I agree with everything Zelay or Chavez does, did, says,or said. I do not. But it's people prepared to support a Coup, all while claiming to "defend democracy"they attack democracy, implying you do not have to bring any charges in any court, implying you don't need to show any facts in any court, and instead you just throw someone out with guns pointed at them instead of showing proof, instead of showing evidence, instead of pressing charges, instead of proving your case in court (as is done against Fujimori) they instead were cowards, anti-democratic, and threw the man out. The constitution might say X is illegal but does not say, "without any trial without any charges, without any proof in a Court of Law, just throw the person out without first Convicting them of a crime" these attitudes are much more frightening than anything Chavez has done, much less, anything Zelaya has ever done