The argument that the removal of the President was not a military coup but a constitutional mandate which devolved on the military because of legal shenanigans by the Executive I find persuasive if it is true. Apparently a number of people find it unconvincing as stated. THe UN and Hillary among them.

The matter should be resolved by a brief inspection of the Honduran constitution and the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the orders which mobilized the military forces against the executive branch, putatively in the interests of preserving, not overthrowing, the Honduran constitution.

I don't have enough data to make that judgement, but apprently this is not an obstacle to some folks.

I see no reason to accept the media-fueld picture of "another hotheaded military overthrow of legitimate power", especially when some of the Hoindurans are asserting it was done within the law.

On the other hand I don't have enough data to believe the other side fully either.

A