State's weird Honduras policy

Washington Times Editorial:

When Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was chosen as chief legal counsel to the State Department, we editorialized that it was an "offensive nomination." We explained that "Mr. Koh's repeatedly stated agenda is contrary to the American tradition of law originating in the 'consent of the governed.' " Little did we know that Mr. Koh would trample on the consent of the governed in other countries, too.

Now we discover that it was Mr. Koh's legal opinion that supported the Obama administration's wrongheaded, and indeed immoral, decision to punish the nation of Honduras. The administration bizarrely objects to Honduran legislators and judges enforcing their own constitution against the would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, who tried to shred a key constitutional restraint against a Honduran president trying for a second term in office.

In August, the Law Library of Congress concluded that "the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya ... in accordance with the Honduran legal system." Yet not only did the Obama administration object, but it imposed unilateral sanctions against Honduras. Even James Kirchick of the liberal New Republic magazine wrote that "U.S. policy has become a mistake in search of a rationale."

Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, reports that when he and Reps. Aaron Schock, Peter Roskam and Doug Lamborn (Republicans of Illinois, Illinois and Colorado, respectively) went on a fact-finding mission to Honduras, the only person there from any party or interest who said Mr. Zelaya should still be in power was U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens. The only source Mr. Llorens could cite for his stance was a legal opinion by Mr. Koh.

...

Former top federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, writing for National Review, put the problem best: "Now, under Obama rules, we have to tell al Qaeda what our interrogation tactics are but we can't tell the American people why the Obama administration has made a political determination to support a [Marxist] thug at the expense of Honduras' rule of law." The stonewalling is unacceptable. So is the policy it supports.

There has been a continuing absence of a rationale for the Honduras policy of the Obama administration. While they initially claimed the removeal of Zelaya was illegal, they have never been able to support that allegation and as the constitutional arguments supporting the removal became clear, the administration has gone into stonewall mode.

It seems pretty clear that Koh's analysis cannot withstand scrutiny. The Times should use a Freedom of Information Act request to shake loose what must be a discredited document. At this point we can only assume it is a very embarrassing document.

Ed Morrissey reports that even the UN has decided that the removal was legal and justified.