I added another comment over on , which when I added my first two comments, I hadn't noticed that the blog is Jeremy Scahill's, who very nearly single-handedly brought down the infamous Blackwater. Well, Blackwater changed leadership and its name and lost a few legal battles, but it's still around. Jeremy though is still watching them like a hawk and rightly so.
Anyway, the post over there and the comment replies have proven very helpful to me in deciding where to take my at least initial stand as explained below.
Without knowing all the details, I must say that if you have characterized things correctly here, and I have no reason at this point to conclude otherwise, it would appear that the survey was surely not illegal.
As for the general being fired for insubordination, if the President has that power and is the final arbiter, then the court had no business reinstating the general.
My other questions above, no doubt, will take more work to answer.
On other matters raised in this thread, it is my understanding that Zelaya would not even have been president at the time any 4th ballot box or question would have been put to the whole people. It is clear that the military powers and those behind them feared the people choosing a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution. In other words, they feared the consent of the majority of the governed. The arguments in this thread that Zelaya was illegally seeking a new constitution are erroneous on their face. He was seeking a new constitution, but that is not illegal under natural or divine law. The only people who would block it are those who fear power in the hands of the people. Yes, the people can become a mob; however, they do so usually in the face of other lawlessness and where truth is suppressed. The ignorant become an unruly law or are those who are driven to extremes by the already lawless.
In my view at this point, unless new evidence comes to light, the military and the courts acted illegally.
Zelaya was not seeking a second term under the current constitution. That's clear.
I wrote this comment before seeing "Participatory's " comment above, which is well-reasoned given the current mundane law in Honduras.
Is Zelaya of the mind to create a brutal, totalitarian, dictatorship on the order of Joseph Stalin; or is he more of a mind to simply keep Honduras from being a pawn of greedy foreign influences and investors. That's putting it charitably.
There is a class struggle going on. The poor in Honduras are not asking for everything for free. I'm sure of that. They are ready, able, and willing to work to feed, house, clothe, and care for each other if not interfered with. The upper class is wrong to look down on them as inferiors, etc. Not all do that, but too many of them do. It's a universal truth across the planet. I don't need to visit Honduras to know this is the case there. I've read statements of some of the rich from there. Also, I remember the death-squad era. It's well documented too.
Neoliberal economics is still very much a threat to the whole hemisphere and planet frankly. We don't need the Washington Consensus.
I'm watching what Barack Obama does. So far, I'm still severely dis-impressed. I don't want war over this or for the people to suffer under some economic-sanctions regime, but the whole world needs to behave as if the military and courts there have zero authority. Any aid needs to go directly to the people completely by-passing the military and courts until further notice.