Let me get this straight....

I didn't rank it above the Bay of Pigs. I thought Iran-Contra (which I am old enough to remember watching as it happened) was not good, but hardly "disgusting," from a foreign policy stand-point. The scandal involved internal U.S. issues, the provision of arms to the Nicaraguan Contras in possible violation of a prohibition against same. I dislike trading anything of value for hostages (especially arms), but I don't find doing so "disgusting."

Here, President Obama has helped stir up and foment trouble for a legitimate, democratic government (the president is most emphatically NOT the entire government) going through an exceedingly trying time, in a region of the world known for political instability, while an undemocratic neighbor, in the form of Chavez, has been actively trying to destabilize the forces of democracy in order to promote a form of dictatorship. Rather than appeal for calm and peace from both sides, President Obama chose to pick a side, fanning the flames of instability. I do indeed find that "disgusting." That mass bloodshed has not broken out is a testament to the sensibilities of the Honduran people and their resistance to the outlaw actions of Zelaya. But President Obama's declaration of the actions of the Honduran Supreme Court, Attorney General, Congress, and military as "not legal" provides support and some moral authority to those who might consider taking violent action in response to the arrest of a clear criminal.

Would it have been better, in an ideal world, to merely arrest him rather than arrest him and take him out of the country? Perhaps, but we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, the continued presence of a man like Zelaya can inspire his supporters to violence.

Can you find any statement by President Obama denouncing the actions of Zelaya, declaring them to have been "not legal"?

WHQ, as a long-time and valued commenter, would you mind registering on the site? Because of spam problems, we have to have an approval queue for comments from unregistered users, and so your comments don't show up until one of us actually clicks to approve them. That's not a huge problem when we're having a back-and-forth like today, but it can sometimes cause long delays in comments appearing, if Simon or I aren't regularly checking back. While our software system asks for your e-mail address to do so, we don't do any mass mailings and certainly never sell or otherwise give out that address to anybody. Thanks!

Casas-Zamora certainly makes a strong argument. It's not the one that President Obama made, however (he made no argument at all). I'd also note that Casas-Zamora continues to refer to this as a "military intervention," without discussing the added complexity that the Supreme Court ordered the arrest. He certainly doesn't discuss the actual language of the Honduran constitution which, as I understand it, actually makes the military responsible for, among other things, conducting the elections.

While I agree that it is generally dangerous to have the military as the defenders of one's democracy, it is hardly unheard of, and has been successful in maintaining larger freedoms elsewhere. For example, Turkey would almost certainly today be just another Islamic theocracy or dictatorship if not for the occasional military coups (and I continue to maintain that nobody should be calling what happened in Honduras a "coup").

"Democracy" is not an end in itself. The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of the people, to help them "effect their Safety and Happiness":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We cannot, thusly, entirely divorce the process from the goals being sought. At times, the use of an inappropriate process may, by itself, be wrong, regardless of the end being sought. At other times, however, the merits of a process cannot be judged without reference to the ends being sought. If reinstating Zelaya increases the odds that freedom in Honduras will ultimately be subverted, as it has in Venezuela, then it would be wrong to do so, given the clear illegality of his actions and his demonstrated refusal to obey Honduran law. To insist on his return to Honduras, without conditions, is to value the process in and of itself, regardless of the end result.