If you want a more balanced and nuanced view of what has happened in Honduras this is a much better summary . The authors point out that while Zelaya violated the law the opposition did themselves no favors by also violating the law ousting him in a coup.
Interesting article but I'm confused on a couple things here. First of all, they mention that while arresting Zelaya "appears to have been permissible under Honduran law," the exile was an unnecessary and illegal step and placing him under house arrest would have been a better option politically. But why? I don't understand why he would be a less sympathetic figure under armed guard in his own home than he is physically unharmed and free aside from being unable to return to Honduras. Is it just that the house arrest would be technically legal and the exile isn't?
Also, the article suggests it would have been better for the military to allow him to stay in office and attempt to carry out the referendum but refuse to support it. It seems to me that that's practically a coup anyway - how is allowing the president to sit at his desk and give orders but refusing to follow them leaving him "in power"?