All “coups” are not the same, just as all wars are not the same. Also, there are “just coups” just like there are “just wars”. Why not, given that wars are infinitely worse and bloodier than coups? I think that to say that all coups are the same and equally wrong is overly simplistic, unrealistic, and self-servingly comfortable. It doesn’t take into account real life situations. It’s okay to say, “In principle, I am against coups” just like it’s okay to say, “In principle, I am against war”. But I would suggest that all of us are willing to bend our principles in certain situations. It is not as black and white as we might wish to paint it.
One can reasonably argue that the arrest and exile of Manuel Zelaya was not a “just coup”. But it is much less reasonable to take the position that simply because it was a coup, therefore it must have been unjust. By the same logic, one can argue that the economic sanctions against Honduras are unjust and thus wrong. Or that Mel’s call for insurrection is unjust and thus wrong. Both the sanctions and the call for insurrection may hurt or even kill people… intentionally or unintentionally. There are clearly “just sanctions” and “just calls to insurrection”… so why not “just coups”?