[lit-ideas] Re: Should Obama be prosecuted under Logan Act?
- From: "Julie Krueger" <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:57:24 -0500
Oh, William.....you had to go and insert the voice of reason into this
..... you've spoiled all the fun.
Lawrence, I hope you're not depressed now. But just think! There'll be
new material tomorrow! Never fear.
Julie Krueger
contrite and conciliatory
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM, William Dolphin <dolphinw@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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=NWZlZjBhNDA0ODEzNWE2ZDMwMDk1MjZkMWE3NjUxZDM)
> 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<http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlODU3MDc3ZjEzZjEzYzVkNGRmNzhiYmZiNjkwNTI=>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<http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2M5ZjMyMzYyOTNlMTc4OGQyNjJhYzRhYWY2OTFhZmY=>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
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
