There's a lively, occasionally angry exchange of views going on at this English-language Honduran blog regarding the overthrow or President Zelaya. The blogger herself is anti-Zelaya, but supporters of the controversial leader are posting their opinions as well. If you scroll down, you'll see my own request for clarification. I'm biased only insofar as I'm biased against the idea of military coups. The essential question seems to be whether the coup was a punitive rather than preventive action. The new regime seems to take the position that its action was punitive, that Zelaya had to be punished by removal from office for violating the country's constitution and that the lack of provisions for impeachment made military action the only legitimate redress against him. My assumption has been that there has to have been a preventive motive, that Zelaya was removed not only to abort the questionable referendum but to stop him from doing something else (though what remains unclear) in the months remaining in his original term. By leaving my card at this blog, so to speak, I may induce some Hondurans to come here to explain things one way or another. We'll see.
For the sake of balance and consistency, here's the latest from the other blog I'm following informally during the crisis.