Fred Hiatt Praises Agreement to Restore Zelaya to Office
Oct 31st, 2009 | 40 responses
Okay, I’ll admit I’m surprised Hiatt decided to go the route of supporting the democratic rule of law and nonviolent conflict resolution — although he cannot resist a bit of propagandizing about the evil “Chavistas.”
The beauty of the U.S.-brokered deal is that it is founded on democratic process — the very thing the Chavistas want to destroy. The Honduran Congress will vote on whether to restore Mr. Zelaya to office for the three months remaining in his term. Mr. Zelaya says he has the votes to return as president, but if he does, he will head a “government of reconciliation,” and the armed forces will report to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a presidential election previously scheduled for Nov. 29 will go forward with international support and regional recognition for the winner. Neither of the two leading presidential candidates supports Mr. Zelaya or his agenda, which means that Honduras’s democracy should be preserved, and Mr. Chávez’s attempted coup rebuffed.
The best part of the editorial is Hiatt’s concluding paragraph:
In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans such as Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), who helped to prolong the Honduran crisis, should have no more excuse to hold up the confirmation of the administration’s appointments for Latin American posts. As it happens, the leader of the U.S. delegation in Honduras this week, outgoing Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, is one of the State Department professionals abused by Mr. DeMint. Having recorded the Obama administration’s biggest diplomatic success so far, Mr. Shannon ought to be allowed to take up his new post as ambassador to Brazil.
He might have added “and who undermined the Obama administration by attempting to conduct his own foreign policy” — but I suppose that’s what he was getting at with the bit about “prolonging the Honduran crisis.”
Here is the complete text of the agreement.
According to the Associated Press (link goes to Google News; the AP article is the first hit), the Honduran Congress will review the accord on Tuesday.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
40 Responses to “Fred Hiatt Praises Agreement to Restore Zelaya to Office”
The 'democratic rule of law' is being violated by this agreement, and that position is supported by the Law Library of Congress itself (and yes, that is the U.S. Congress Law Library we are talking about, specifically the Directorate of Legal Research for Foreign, Comparative, and International Law).
To quote from their conclusion:
So, how the overturning of a legal action of the Honduran's Legislature and Supreme Court by non-Constitutional and returning him to power is 'supporting democratic rule of the law' is a twisting of logic and legality that only the Left and Left-sympathizers can appreciate.
And only the Left and Left-sympathizers refer to it as a coup. Of course, that is all that exists to the Left, their opinions, especially when the facts, as stated in the Law Library report quite directly, unambiguously, and in terms that likely preclude any inability to successfully parse the clear-meaning of the words used, turns out to be 'an inconvenient truth'.
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee, TMV. TMV said: Fred Hiatt Praises Agreement to Restore Zelaya to Office: Okay, I’ll admit I’m surprised Hiatt decided to go the… http://bit.ly/1hABEe [...]
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
“unambiguous”…. C'mon. So there are two parts to it. The first part says “available sources” which does not sound clear or exhaustive and “indicates” would appear to point but not underscore the so called “facts” of the government case. And based on the above I would say that these questionable “democratic” moves were then followed by a completely illegal move of kidnapping the president and transporting him out of the country.
In what democratic hell, can a military and a plotting judiciary simply remove a sitting president?
Read the Library of Congress Report.
The Military's role, which they overstepped, was to secure the ex-President. No one denies removing him from the country was illegal. But it was the Legislature and the Supreme Court that that removed him as President. The Military was not involved in that decision.