[lit-ideas] Should Obama be prosecuted under Logan Act?
- From: "William Dolphin" <dolphinw@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:38:52 -0500
Oh, please.
I'm not prepared to dig into the differences between reducing force levels
in Iraq now -- a decision by Pres. Bush which Sen. Obama has commended with
the qualification that he wishes it were more and sooner -- and the creation
of a long-term agreement about American military presence -- an agreement
which many in Congress have said should not be made by a lame-duck
President -- other than to note that there does seem to be one and that
confusing the two is what appears to be happening here and in the notably
sloppy Taheri piece.
But then I already said that.
Wm. Dolphin
Memphis
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lawrence Helm
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:02 PM
To: lawrencehelm1.post@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Lit-Ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Should Obama be prosecuted under Logan Act?
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
The above article is entitled “Obama Camp hits back at Double-Talk Claim”
but the article includes the following:
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's
article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign
commercial."
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a
"Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until
after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
Perhaps the blogger Ed Morrisy was the first to notice that Wendy Morigi
hadn’t really contradicted Taheri’s claim. In fact it confirmed it. If
AFP is quoting Morigi correctly that would seem to be true.
So the next question is what to do about it. Apparently the “respectable”
news sources other than AFP have not dealt with this story yet . . . Some I’
ve read are suggesting that since they are in Obama’s pocket, they won’t.
So other agencies are dealing with it. The National Review (see
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZlZjBhNDA0ODEzNWE2ZDMwMDk1MjZkMWE
3NjUxZDM ) asked Andy McCarty to evaluate Amy Holmes article and his
response was “First, I don't like the idea of Logan Act prosecutions. I
addressed this back in 2007 when Speaker Pelosi tried to conduct foreign
policy in the Middle East, and I haven't changed my mind. Like the Pelosi
gambit, this Obama misstep would be a golden political opportunity for the
McCain campaign and the GOP. It ought to be handled just that way — argue
how despicable and hypocritical the conduct is, but refrain from calls for
prosecution.
“Second, at this point we also have to be concerned about the overlay of
this whole issue of criminalizing politics — which is banana-republic stuff
and which Obama and Biden have threatened to do to their political opponents
if they get their hands on the Justice Department. The editors addressed
this in an editorial last week, and I think, for the reasons argued there,
that the criminalization of our policy debates is to be avoided. That
doesn't mean Obama would not have violated the law if he did this, or that
such a violation would not merit our condemnation. But letting prosecutors
decide our politics is a prescription for a very bad brand of politics.”
After the Obama camp denial which confirms the Taheri allegation, it seems
safe to assume that Obama did do what Taheri said he did (unless the AFP
article is a fake which doesn’t seem possible – all these qualifications
only because Obama supporters are violently opposed to the implications of
the Taheri report – and I don’t want another visit from the ATTF) does seem
to be a violation of the Logan Act. The Logan act is summarized as follows:
The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries
on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any
officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with
the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or
his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of
any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its
agents or subjects.”
Andy McCarthy said that if we, (it would have to be the Attorney General I
suppose), charged Obama with a violation of the Logan Act, we would be like
a Banana Republic, conducting our political campaigns in the court. But is
that true? Why did we create the Logan Act if we didn’t intend to enforce
it?
What are the extenuating circumstances that would convince the Attorney
General not to charge Obama with a violation of the Logan Act? I don’t
know. Do nominees get a free ride? Do they have diplomatic immunity? We’
ll see.
[I’ll do a quick Google-check before posting this, to see if any of the
“reputable” news agencies have picked this story up yet – or if there are
any smoking-gun denials – or if Taheri has been arrested by the Obama police
for making the whole thing up . . . nope.]
Lawrence Helm
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1674 - Release Date: 9/16/2008
8:15 AM
Other related posts:
