This article is so off the mark I don't know where to begin. Some of the historical facts are correct, but the view of an omnipresent, supremely powerful military is simply wrong. The military has been off the political and economic scene and firmly under civilian control for at least 10-15 years. In fact, general Vasquez made painful attempts to obey the president's illegal order. Were it not for the public and mounting pressure from civilian, government and non-governmental organizations as diverse as the lawyer's union, the churches, the ombudsman and many ad-hoc constitutional -defense groups, I am not sure he would not have chosen discipline over law.
Your statement about a "military-controlled Congress" is either an outright lie or sad misinformation. The military has zero presence, visible or otherwise, in our Congress, or do you have any evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, our Constitution defines the line of succession in case the president is gone (article 242). And yes, Micheletti was next in line since our vice-president quit last year to run for president. All Congress did was follow our constitution, as well it should. There is absolutely no military presence in the new government, the minister of defense is civilian and has no military background.
And where do you get off speaking about our constitution with such scorn? Where are the articles that limit "individual liberty"? I invite you to do a side by side comparison about honduran and US constitution, to determine which one better protects "individual liberty". Yours may have been a shining example 200 tears ago, but by today's standards it is certainly not the most democratic document around. It hardly gives you solid footing for the misplaced moral superiority that you pass as analysis . Where the US is better than Honduras is in respecting its constitution as the institution that it is. No US president would dream of placing himself above the constitution, which is exactly what ours did, and that is what ultimately led to his demise.
Also, I'll have you know that our constitution has 378 articles, of which 371 are open to reform (and several have in fact been reformed, as TheDailySketch points out).. The only articles that are not subject to change are the ones that refer to territory, form of government, and those that prevent a would-be dictator like Zelaya from abusing their power to stay in power. Of course he wanted to change that. And even if you don't like our constitution, it is OUR constitution and not open to the opinions of any foreigners. We have lived by it in peace and making democratic strides for 27 years. We do not take lightly to attempts to destroy it, as Zelaya wanted. I am sure most americans would feel the same way about yours.
One last thing. I agree with the title of your article. We are, in fact, haunted by our history. But not in the sense that our history is coming back; it haunts us in the sense that people like you are judging our actions today from the perspective of what our fathers or grandfathers did more than 25 years ago.