There are also several columns out defending the move, including this one by Octavio Sanchez. Again it is an argument over the legalities of oster and exile, but this part puzzled me:
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible.
Really? Why? Because he would have resisted his ouster politically, as a deposed head of state is likely to do? The one thing that troubles me more than anything is the fact that Zelaya was almost immediately put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica. You don't export leaders unless you fear that someone in your country might actually be upset that they were deposed. Doing so is a clear subversion of democracy, even if it's done after an otherwise legal arrest.
The rest of it is merely argument about the legality of his arrest and removal, and as I've stated before, the fact that you can argue about his ouster is a sign of the weakness of the coup plotters' arguments.
No one should be overly troubled that the Obama administration has indicated their disapproval of the coup. Every member of the OAG has condemned the coup, and they have done so because of an abiding fear of military coups, which have a long and sordid history in Latin America. Zelaya may have been unpopular, and many Hondurans may welcome his removal, but his removal and exile is a coup plain and simple, and is rightly condemned.