Question of the Day:
If a nation's military, acting under the orders of its Supreme Court, moves to arrest the president of the country for openly violating its constitution in ways that will promote his own power, is that accurately described as a "coup?"
[/everyone on the internet]
.
The legislature, on viewing this, crafted a measure that sounds similar to impeachment, and approved it. The military was carrying out the legislatures order, because the president would not leave office after the people's body debated and voted him out of office.
.
An unjustified military-led coup? Yes, according to the press and the highest ranking members of the United States government.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Honduras's laws are heavily based on Spanish (and Italian?) laws, and not so much English
.
Honduras heads toward crisis over referendum (AP - June 26)
Re-Writing the Constitution of Honduras: Power Grab or Change Long Overdue? (March 2009)
.
The only link to the Honduran Constitution that I could find was in Spanish. I also did not manage to find source documents, e.g., the suit, the court decision, the legislature's resolution, etc.
It's one thing to not perform orders because they have been ruled illegal. It's another to take orders from persons who are not constitutionally eligible to issue such orders.
Link
Why is Obama's administration demanding Zelaya's return to power? Talk about 'interfering with internal affairs'.
So Iran's election is an absolute sham, with the thinest of veils, and we have no business commenting on that... but Honduras has an issue where its judiciary and executive come to loggerheads, its legislature and military sides with the judiciary, and NOW we have something to say against it?
A more cynical turn of mind might think Obama's only principles of foreign policy is whatever it takes to get popular in the danker corners of the world at the expense of those trying to reform them. This is making Carter look like FDR.
and apparently our Secretary of State and President...
I'm assuming their words are merely formulaic boilerplate, designed to ward off the chavista rantings, which should not be acknowledged at all, let alone from the WH.
But as it seems now Zelaya was removed from power by the Army, only then was he removed by legislature.
.
I assume the US has been weighing in on the Honduran president's side in this for months, at least via participation in the OAS. The rhetoric coming from the US government and UN leadership is almost word for word identical.
Not every country's constitution lets their chief executive say "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Such an order from the US Supreme Court would conflict with the US consitution. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the Honduran constitution vests no authority in the Honduran Supreme Court to issue such an order?
Could Costa Rica Overthrow Its President? (Inside Costa Rica - June 29, 2009)
I'd like a detailed timeline with source documents too, but the reports in the US, especially the "military coup" lede, are grossly misleading. In other words, typical.
Now, if this were happening in the United States, then it's something we kick around.
Here, the answer would be yes, it's a Coup d'Etat. The President may be contitutionally deposed only through the impeachment process.
Were the Supreme Court to rule that a particular Presidential order, for example, to seize the Capitol and arrest the members of Congress, were unlawful, that Presidential order becomes unlawful and the military is not obliged to obey it. Obeying such an order would subject military personnel to criminal libility.
However, the president remains the president until removed by the constitutional impeachment process. The Supreme Court would continue to be the final arbiter pf the process, but the order for his removal from office comes from Congress.
Parenthetically, the Honduran facts would present a serious ripeness issue is they transpired here. Suppose a mock constitutional convention were called by someone without the legal power to do so: so what? That mock convention has to do something and someone has to take action to execute what it decided in order for there to be a justicible issue.
Until removal the President remains the one in control of the football. Yes, that football.
As at the time of the Andrew Johnson impeachment, the most important lawyers in the country would be the JAG's.
I'd like a detailed timeline with source documents too, but the reports in the US, especially the "military coup" lede, are grossly misleading. In other words, typical.
Last week the Congress found Zelaya mentally incapable, but I don't think that's the same as voting to removed him from office.
http://tiny.cc/Hl4Al
And it's not just the US press. Everyone from the BBC and France 24, to NHK in Japan have described this as a military coup.
Actually, given that a) the Algiers accords include a separate undertaking that the US are going to stay out of Iran's internal affairs, b) Honduras is more traditionally in the US's backyard, and c) in Honduras there is less evidence that a US statement is going to produce undesirable effects, I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong. It makes sense that the administration would speak out much more clearly in the Honduras case. (All else equal, of course.)
Otherwise, I'm with bornyesterday: "It's one thing to not perform orders because they have been ruled illegal. It's another to take orders from persons who are not constitutionally eligible to issue such orders." Beyond that, I don't know enough about the case to be able to comment.
I'm guessing that's what Hillary would have said if the Senate had actually voted to convict her husband in the impeachment trial.
Honduras heads toward crisis over referendum (AP - FREDDY CUEVAS)
But the urge to overrule a term limit seems to be universal.
.
Good point. According to Democrats, the US had a mentally incapable president in GWB, and Congress never voted to remove him.
.
Still, I think the simplification "military coup" is inaccurate. I agree that the weight of world press is headlining the incident as "coup," and I'll just repeat that I find misleading headlines and press accounts to be typical.
How about the Sydney Morning Herald news piece:
Or we could go with an article in a Honduran newspaper. (in Spanish.)
.
Who is constitutionally eligible to order the undertaking of a public referendum? Should the military follow THAT illegal order? Or was it a military coup when the military OBEYED the constitution and turned power back to the legislature?
Somebody has obviously never watched 24. The most common phrases on that show are "Dammit," "There's no time!" and "The 25th Amendment."
Still in general terms: I'm not sure what the military had to do with the referendum, but if the referendum was unlawful, all they had to do was ignore the president's orders insofar as they concerned the referendum. They don't have to obey unlawful orders, and they may very well be forbidden from doing so. A positive step of intervention, on the other hand, is much more tricky, and should normally be left to civilian law enforcement.
A fairly quick and easy read.
I bet the constitutional absence of means for orderly removal of officers will be remedied via constitutional amendment.
Now if the Honduran constitution allows the Supreme Court to remove the President, and to issue orders to the military, then maybe this wasn't a coup.
I made no such assertion. I said that whether the action was a coup was dependent upon whether the Honduran Supreme Court could legally give orders to the Honduran military. Whether they have that authority or not is something I don't know.
@cboldt
Again, it depends on the constitution and how military orders are handed down from the government.
In simplest terms, I'd say that a coup is any time in which the military acts outside of the constitutionally defined legal process for replacing the head of state. (Basically what Another David said.)
Iran seized hostages in violation of international law, the US paid ransom (ie, unfroze assets) and got the hostages back.
The "accord" was extorted and is of no validity.
In fact, its formal repudiation would send an interesting message.
.
What if the president is taking unconstitutional positive steps of intervention against court orders? What if the civilian forces lack the force capability to mount an effective block?
Key leaders of Honduras military coup trained in U.S.
Usually, in a coup, one can point to the opposition leader. In this case it seems that the president is trying to stage a coup, and the government organs are resisting.
.
Agreed that "it's tricky" and "it's dicey" and if it's true that the constitution doesn't anticipate a coup by the president, then the removal action is "outside the boundaries of the constitution."
The military is under the orders of the president, so why should the Supreme Court's opinion on the legality of his orders matter? The president is entitled to his own opinion of the law, and the military would seem to be constitutionally obligated to accept that. That doesn't mean they should do so; such a situation may well call for a coup. The constitution isn't the Word of God. But by its own terms it seems to me that the military, as part of the executive branch, must be controlled by the president's view of the constitution, not by the judicial branch's view.
At least under US law, that doesn't seem to be right. Once the courts have spoken, what they said goes.
And the lawful way to fix that is to impeach the president. (I wouldn't know whether under Honduras law this can be done by the Supreme Court.) Once the president is impeached and replaced, the new president can give whatever orders are necessary to prevent a coup by the ex-president.
This, to me, looks a lot like a coup d'État as a way to use a pretext to get rid of a formerly conservative president who had a strange habit of forgetting his traditional/promised friendships during his term...
Here is the last section of the constitution:
CAPITULO II
DE LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCION
ARTICULO 375.- Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere supuestamente derogada o modificada por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distintos del que ella mismo dispone. En estos casos, todo ciudadano investido o no de autoridad, tiene el deber de colaborar en el mantenimiento o restablecimiento de su afectiva vigencia.
Serán juzgados, según esta misma constitución y las leyes expedidas en conformidad con ella, los responsables de los hechos señalados en la primera parte del párrafo anterior, lo mismo que los principales funcionarios de los gobiernos que se organicen subsecuentemente, si no han contribuido a restablecer inmediatamente el imperio de esta Constitución y a las autoridades constituidas conforme a ella. El Congreso puede decretar con el voto de la mayoría absoluta de sus miembros, la incautación de todo o parte de los bienes de esas mismas personas y de quienes se hayan enriquecido al amparo de la suplantación de la soberanía popular o de la usurpación de los poderes públicos, para resarcir a la República de los perjuicios que se le hayan causado.
Which (help here from some Spanish speakers?) babel fish gives me as:
CHAPTER II
The inviolability of the Constitution
CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 375
This Constitution does not lose its use nor stops being fulfilled by force act or when supposedly it will be countermanded or modified by any other different means and procedure del that same it arranges. In these cases, all citizen invested or not with authority, must have to collaborate in the maintenance or reestablishment of his affective use. They will be judged, according to this same constitution and the laws sent in compliance with her, the people in charge of the facts indicated in the first part of the previous paragraph, just like the main civil servants of the governments who are organized subsequently, if they have not contributed to immediately restore the empire of this Constitution and to the authorities constituted according to her. The Congress can decree with the vote of the absolute majority of its members, the seizure of everything or leaves from the goods of those same people and of those who have become rich under protection of the suplantación of the popular sovereignty or the usurpation of the powers public, to repay to the Republic of the damages that have been caused to him.
Emphasis mine. Thoughts?
I suppose the events of the coming days will give us an answer -- how soon will the military give up power?
a) The Algiers accords apparently said the US would not intervene in Iranian internal political or military affairs, and diplomatic rhetoric is not intervention. That's even assuming that accord has any meaning or value today, which I don't assume in the slightest. We'll shoot down an Iranian plane in a heartbeat, if need be.
b) We have 150,000 troops operating in harm's way on Iran's border, and a navy directly offshore. That is as much a backyard as Honduras.
c) Statements supporting liberal governance are always desirable, whether they directly achieve results or not, but particularly necessary when people are being shot through the heart for assembling and speaking.
So, the need for speaking out re Iran far outweighs the fetish for speaking out about Honduras, and it remains curious that Obama/Hillary reverse this order.
So, I'm going to go ahead and say that your statement that I'm wrong... is wrong.
Whatever happened to conservatives usually being realists? Did the entire republican party get infected by Bush's "Making the world safe for democracy?". If so, when is John Yoo getting kicked out of the party? But seriously, I'd say that a "statement supporting liberal governance" is not desirable when it is likely to produce the opposite result. Whether that was the case with regard to Iran last week I wouldn't dare say.
(I apologise for any misspellings I may have missed)
Title I: OF THE STATE
CHAPTER I
OF THE STATE'S ORGANIZATION
ARTICLE 1,-Honduras is a State of right, soverign, consituted as a free republic, democratic and independent to ensure (guarantee) the enjoymnet of justice, liberty, culture and the economic and social well being.
ARTICLE 2: The soverignty corresponds (soverignty resides) to the people (town) from whom/where emanates all the powers the State exercises by represenation.
The supplanting of the popular soverignty and the usurpation of the powers constituted typify like/as crimes of treason against the Country (Fatherland). The responsibility in these cases is Imprescriptible and can be deduced (charged?) by court of law (officio) or by petition of any citizen.
ARTICLE 3: No one owes obedience to a usurping government nor to those who assume functions or public employment through force of arms or through menas or procedures that break or are unknown to what is in the Consitution and the laws establish. The actes sanctioned by such authorities are null and the people (town) have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the consitutional order.
ARTICLE 4: The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. It is composed of (exercised through) three powers: Legislative, Executive and Judicial, complimentary and independent without a subordinate relattionship.
The alternability (rotation?) of the [exercising of the] Presidency of the Republic is required (obligatory).
The violation of this rule (norm) constitutes the crime of treason aginst the country (fatherland).
(snip)
CHAPTER VI
OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER
ARTICLE 237: The presidential term is four years and starts on the twenty-seven of january following the date of the election.
(snip)
ARTICLE 239: The citizen that has performed [under] the title of Executive Power cannot be President or Designate.
Whoever breaks this provision/regulation or proposes its reform, as well as those who support directly of indirectly [the breaking of this provision/regulation], will cease immediately in their performance of their relative charges (public office?), and are inelegible from public office for a period of 10 years.
(snip)
The laws are based like every latin american country in Spanish and Italian laws. But the 375 quoted is based in the 330 of Venezuela Constitution. It was 250 in the 1961 Venezuelan Constitution. A 1969 amendment of German Ground Law added an identical article as 19 or 20. not sure on the number.
International law doesn't recognize "extortion" as a defense to treaties or accords. Otherwise, obviously, every treaty ending a war would be "extorted" and thus void.
It seems to me that the final paragraph of the constitution sited above delineates a duty for citizens to 'maintain and reestablish' the inviolability of the constitution. There is apparently otherwise no 'lawful' method for removing a sitting president. Either we posit that under NO circumstance could a sitting president be deposed (in violation of the constitution itself as cited, as well as everything we have considered as our Western tradition of liberal government responsive to the will of the people), or we must suppose that some action would be permissible to carry out the defense of the constitution, and why not this with 2 of 3 branches supportive?
I thought the Supreme Court says it had done just that. See John Thacker's comment at 11:14am above.
One of the many reasons "International law" is not "law" at all.
Is this just some generic whining, because you have nothing to support your position, or what?
But seriously, I'd say that a "statement supporting liberal governance" is not desirable when it is likely to produce the opposite result.
You have a mighty strange worldview, martinned, if you're claiming that it is unacceptable in any circumstance to speak out against the murder of those participating in peaceable assembly and speech, but especially so in the fantastical case you've posited.
It is striking, that Obama/Hillary were so quick on the draw re Honduras, following their Iran hesitancies... where citizens were being slaughtered on the streets. Simply striking.
Overall, I prefer results to saying things that make us feel good. In the vast majority of cases, there isn't much of a difference, since words of condemnation matter much less than our political overlords like to think. In the case of Iran, I'd follow Reza Aslan's recommendation and suggest the US work through its allies, instead of trying to do anything directly.
Ningún funcionario o empleado, civil o militar, está obligado a cumplir órdenes ilegales o que impliquen la comisión de delito.
No Public Officer , civilian or in the military have teh duty to complay orders that are illegals or are a felony
That is a common clause in latinamerican constitutions
RTICULO 313.- Los Tribunales de Justicia requerirán el auxilio de la Fuerza Pública para el cumplimiento de sus resoluciones; si les fuera negado o no lo hubiere disponible, lo exigirán de los ciudadanos.
The Courts will have the add of Public Force to enforce theirs resolutions , if denied they will get it from the citizens
But
278Las órdenes que imparta el Presidente de la República a las Fuerzas Armadas, por intermedio del Jefe de las mismas, deberán ser acatadas y ejecutadas.
President orders must be obeyed by the army force
So you must appeal to the heaven
You're conflating things here. Rhetoric and resolution are 2 differerent things. Both are important, and both may need to be addressed. Rhetoric is often at least partially about resolution, and can be crafted accordingly, but it must also stand alone, on first principles.
And it must be brought to bear based upon those first principles. That is an absolute. Obama/Hillary seem not to have recognized this, and gotten that scrambled, as their Honduras scurrying about makes clear.
As should be the end result of any good debate, I think we've distilled our differences on this point to first principles, over which there isn't really any point to argue.
This is not altogether clear. We have two countervailing precedents. The first is Marbury vs. Madison (1803). That is the standard argument that The Supreme Court is supreme. But that precedent is self serving by SCOTUS and only stands because no one has challenged it.
But there is the Cherokee Nation precedent. "John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it" (1832) That precedent indicates that the President may act in defiance of the SCOTUS. But that precedent is self serving by the POTUS, and only stands because no one has challenged it.
In practicality, it takes two branches to overthrow the third.
I am not particularly anxious to see this issue "tried," because the results could get messy. I suspect that a popular and politically powerful president, acting with the support of Congress, could safely ignore a SCOTUS ruling. This would set powerful precedent.
A weak president attempting that, would probably be deposed by impeachment. A president attempting to negate an impeachment and conviction by force, would be in rebellion. That's where it could get particularly ugly.
It's more than just a subtle point, and I am far more realistic than you, I would suspect, re resolutions of international issues. But that realism must be platformed on first principles... and Obama/Hillary clearly missed the boat in this case.
And have done so in the past, even in the absence of need.
I hope that our stance is designed to keep Chavez away from Honduras. There are coups and there are coups, and this clearly appears to be one to keep the president from subverting the constitution. All of the main interest groups seem to be supporting Zelaya's ouster.
In any event, are countries forbidden to stage coups just because their neighbors don't like them?
When the Honduran Supreme court judged the president committed treason the rule of succession of power takes over, whatever its.
I find it astonishing that the left has been lecturing our nation about befriending dictators all through the cold war (back when there was an actual advantage to it) like Saddam Hussein etc, and now its in vogue on the left in the name of 'realism', while even giving moral support to democratic movements under incredibly reactionary regimes is viewed as harmful to our selfish interests. What's the world coming to? Is their any regime too rancid to illicit Obama's disavowal? Apartheid South Africa? Pol Pot's Cambodia? How bad do you have to be before this administration simply says, hey, we have nothing to say to you and we will work to see you overthrown.
Assume I am right. If so, how do we justify sticking our nose into the internal affairs of Honduras and pressuring it to restore a man who wants to overthrow the system?
@ Anononymous314: Any person could (theoretically, if they got past the Secret Service) arrest the President for a specific violation of the Constitution or other illegal act. But that would not remove the President from office - only impeachment or the 25th Amendment may remove a President constitutionally.
Given that it is the legislature - the People's Branch - that has the power to impeach the president, it would seem that
It looks like these uS have about 500 troops stationed in Honduras. Why?
Melancton Smith: I agree. Let's only deal with ours, though.
Regarding our version, maybe putting Congress in charge of the process was a bad idea. Kinda like stocking six jury slots with the defendant's best friends and the other six with alleged victims and/or their close friends.
Since I live in CA, and thereby receive some very significant personal benefits from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, I'm very much in favor of encouraging this particular provision of international law.
1. I am a he.
2. My question, which was meant to be quasi-sarcastic, was not properly worded. It should have been: "In any event, is the military in a country forbidden to stage a coup in that country just because neighboring countries don't like coups?"
3. I was not concerned with the issue of a neighboring country's intervening to support the coup attempt. Rather, I was making an oblique reference to the condemnation of the events in Honduras by other countries in the region. Was I really not that clear?
If the army has only removed Zelaya from office (their constitutional duty), and not attempted to otherwise seize control of the country, then calling it a coup strains notions of such.
Overall, those articles strike me as codified Ataturk.
Zelaya moved too early either because he was running out of term or thought his popular appeal was greater than it was and he'd get spontaneous support from the masses. In any event, the Courts and Army took the initiative and forestalled his play.
In fact there is a political move called a "self-coup". This is where the present holder(s) of political power move to seize additional power by extralegal means.
This usually means the chief executive suppressing the legislature and judiciary, and thereafter ruling as a dictator. One historic example was Louis Napoleon's coup of 1851. More recent cases include moves by President Vargas of Brazil (1937); President Marcos of the Philipppines (1972); President Park of Korea (1972); Prime Minister Gandhi of India (1975); President Fujimori of Peru (1992); and President Musharraf of Pakistan (2007). In some cases, the ruler allows the legislature and judiciary to continue to operate, but now exercises authority entirely free of their powers, and with the ability to override them at will.
It is arguable that President Zelaya was attempting a self-coup when he was removed.
In terms of a democracy, this was a coup by the military.
In terms of a republic, it was a failed coup by Zelaya.
The question is whether the most recent elections or the constitution (amendable by elections) is the basis for the law of the land.
This disturbs me greatly.
Under U.S. law, a U.S. Marshal would be the normal official to arrest someone, even a government official, for contempt of court, and elections are, outside D.C., always run by state and local officials, so the U.S. isn't very comparable.
The story doesn't make clear if this violation of arrest was a federal election offense (e.g. it might be a misdemeanor to conduct an election not authorized by law under the election code), or violation of the court order itself.
The story also doesn't make entirely clear the question of whether the arrest was carried out at the behest of the Supreme Court or the Attorney General who probably have more direct authority over law enforcement than the comparable U.S. official.
Certainly, there is nothing foreign to U.S. practice about elected very senior elected officials for alleged criminal violations at the direction of law enforcement officers who report to the national attorney general (e.g., the FBI). Illinois Governor Blagovich and several members of Congress come to mind within the past few years, although this wouldn't be done by the U.S. military, without far more exigent circumstances, in a case involving the President, in the United States.
Is it a coup?
For journalistic purposes, probably so, as the term is used more loosely in journalistic circumstances (the Presidential disability provisions of the U.S. Constitution, while clearly legal are known as the "palace coup" provision in political science circles using the looser definition as well).
But, in the narrow, "unlawful removal of a regime or its leader by force or threat of force, usually by the military" the answer would be no, it is not a coup.
Interesting example. In many countries, the military has a formal constitutional role as a "guardian of the constitution and the state," which is analogous to the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as the Supreme Judicial Power of the U.S. President as "Commander-in-Chief." Turkey is among those countries (and is the most famous for having that provision), and the role of the Honduran military in elections suggest that it may have a similar role.
I also note that there is no clear U.S. precedent that the President is either immune from arrest for a criminal offense for acts beyond the scope of his official authority (e.g., if he shot his wife at a White House dinner, or ordered a burglary of a campaign opponent), or that the President is immune from arrest for contempt of court.
The precedents are pretty clear that, subject to speech and debate clause protections which are not absolute, that no one else in the United States has either form of immunity (high military officers may have such immunity in fact simply by virtue of the fact that no one with authority to arrest them may be present or capable of being present where they happen to be). The indication of precedents in the Nixon situation and sense then, has been that that the Courts believe that such a right exists, although it should be exercised very judiciously. In the same vein, President Clinton was not granted immunity from a civil deposition subpeona from events arising prior to his election and his conduct in that deposition was closely links to his impeachment (even though he prevailed at the trial of that impeachment).
Brutal? Really? I'd say they were pretty tame, by current standards. For example, after the Boston Massacre, the British soldiers involved were indicted by a local grand jury and put on trial before a local trial jury. Imagine something like that happening today. (Remember, for example, what happened when Idaho attempted to try Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver?)
Well, plenty of patriots were introduced to prison ships in Boston Harbor and never saw daylight again. But I was thinking more as a global power- the way the British dealt with the remainder of the colonial empire doesn't compare, brutality wise. Ask India.
1) Breakthrough coup d’état: a revolutionary army overthrows a traditional government and creates a new bureaucratic élite. Generally led by non-commissioned officers (NCOs) or junior officers. Examples are China in 1911, Bulgaria in 1944, Egypt in 1952, Greece in 1967, Libya in 1969 and Liberia in 1980.
2) Guardian coup d’état: the "musical chairs" coup d’état. The stated aim of such a coup is usually improving public order, efficiency, and ending corruption. There usually is no fundamental change to the power structure. Generally, the leaders portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. An early example is the coup d’état by consul Sulla, in 88 B.C., against supporters of Marius in Rome, after the latter attempted to strip him of a military command. A contemporary instance is the civilian Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's overthrow by Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, who cited widespread civil disorder and impending civil war as his justification. In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the same grounds. Nations with guardian coups can frequently shift back and forth between civilian and military governments. Example countries include Argentina (1930 to 1983), Pakistan, Turkey, and Thailand. A “bloodless coup” usually arises from the Guardian coup d’état.
3) Veto coup d’état: occurs when the army vetoes the people's mass participation and social mobilisation in governing themselves. In such a case, the army confronts and suppresses large-scale, broad-based civil opposition, tending to repression and killing, the prime example in Marxist historiography is the coup d’état in Chile in 1973 against the elected Socialist President Salvador Allende Gossens by the Chilean military. The 20 July 1944 plot by parts of the German military to overthrow the elected National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler in Germany is an example of a failed veto coup d’état.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.