tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1338612245455097792.post3880216768476333028..comments2023-09-11T10:45:49.957-07:00Comments on Honduras Culture and Politics: Hugo Llorens Concluded Coup was Utterly UnjustifiedRAJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1338612245455097792.post-12545345862407271592010-12-03T14:29:38.330-08:002010-12-03T14:29:38.330-08:00Administrative note. Today, Dec. 3, at about 10:2...Administrative note. Today, Dec. 3, at about 10:28PM GMT I updated the link to the Hugo Llorens cable to the new location after Wikileaks was booted from US domains. For those looking for the new URL:<br /><br />http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TEGUCIGALPA645.htmlRNShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14197289255196253989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1338612245455097792.post-40081546875889744972010-11-29T09:54:39.145-08:002010-11-29T09:54:39.145-08:00The release of this memo fully vindicates the work...The release of this memo fully vindicates the work that you did to examine Honduran law, and you deserve congratulations and a standing O for that work. <br /><br />I think there's another important inference to be drawn from this release. Llorens' tone is blunt to the point of being testy. He calls it an open and shut case, twice emphasizes that Zelaya was removed by the military, citing no evident civilian control, and calls the coup "patently illegal." He also suggests that the "Attorney General's office and the Supreme Court now reportedly question the legality" could form the basis for "a face-saving 'out.'" This "out" would seem to involve prosecuting Micheletti and Vasquez Velasquez. <br /><br />I would call the tone of this memo indirect evidence that Llorens was not in on the nature of the coup, that perhaps he was trying to refute arguments by State (specifically Koh and Donoghue) that the coup might have been legal. This interpretation contradicts the (slim) evidence that Llorens might have been a protagonist of the coup independent of the State Department. Rather, my hypothesis has been that State had signed off on a soft coup using the trappings of legality, and that elements of the military and intelligence apparatus decided that a military-style coup was essential to intimidate other Bolivaran leaders. For an ambassador to be bypassed would be unusual, especially considering that Llorens was, to judge from his background, apt to be susceptible to the argument that Zelaya was planning to be another Chavez. <br /><br />I hope we'll find out more, especially about the interesting detail that Zelaya was flown out through Palmerola. Surely if State was innocent of involvement in the coup, they would have been quizzing the ambassador on that one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com