So, the US government decides what is negotiation, and what is a peace-seeking meeting?

:thumb:

 

Who decides that Carter is lying?

A federal court of law.

Negotiation implies that concessions will be made by the US. If Carter is not presenting or promising any concessions, in what way is that negotiating?

No need to guess here. Read Carter's own words and then read the Logan Act. Carter states that he hopes to change Hamas' behavior and the Logan Act is specifically aimed at private citizens attempting to influence foreign governments without the authorization of the American government.

 

Carter says that he hopes to induce changes in the behavior of Hamas and the US State Department has clearly not authorized his intended actions. He will therefore, be in violation of the Logan Act if he proceeds.

 

It seems you'd love to see Carter imprisoned. Me, I'd love to see some sort of imprisonment of "W" for the criminal mess he's made of Iraq.

I strongly believe in the rule of law. There is no law that would allow Bush to be imprisoned for his lawful actions, whether liberals agree with them or not.

 

Carter intends to violate the Logan Act again, and he should be jailed if he follows through on his threat. My preference is that Carter simply stay home and exercise his constitutional right of dissent in Georgia. The Bush administration should tell Carter privately that if he meets with Hamas, then he will be prosecuted. McCain and Obama should support that position as well.

Are we then recognizing Hamas as a government?

Ah yes...the democratic way...squash the dissenters.

Ah yes, the Democrat way...yield to terrorists.

Are we then recognizing Hamas as a government?

We don't have to. All we need to do is recognize Hamas as an agent of the Iranian government and the Logan Act applies. Besides, it is not clear that formal recognition of a foreign government is necessary for the Logan Act to apply. Hamas holds a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority legislative council. Let's let a court decide.

 

All the Bush administration really needs to do is revoke Carter's passport.

We don't have to. All we need to do is recognize Hamas as an agent of the Iranian government and the Logan Act applies. Besides, it is not clear that formal recognition of a foreign government is necessary for the Logan Act to apply. Hamas holds a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Authority legislative council. Let's let a court decide.

 

All the Bush administration really needs to do is revoke Carter's passport.

 

We can't have it both ways. Either Hamas is legitimate or they are not.

 

Sure. Take his passport. It's just another step in making our government more like the ones we swear as our enemies.

We can't have it both ways. Either Hamas is legitimate or they are not.

Are you serious? The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Iran. Would Carter also be free to negotiate directly with Iran to "induce them" to change their behavior? If that is Carter's defense, then let him present it in court.

 

Sure. Take his passport. It's just another step in making our government more like the ones we swear as our enemies.

After giving this matter some additional consideration, I see the flaw in my argument. You are correct, denying Carter the right to travel abroad would put us on par with East Germany, which attempted to hold all of its citizens prisoners, including its traitors and other undesirables.

 

Our government should make sure that when it revokes Carter's passport that both of his feet are planted on foreign soil and then deny him reentry. (Place him on the terrorist watch list with his Hamas friends.) Carter would then be free to negotiate with any nation or terrorist organization as a free agent.

Are you serious? The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Iran. Would Carter also be free to negotiate directly with Iran to "induce them" to change their behavior? If that is Carter's defense, then let him present it in court.

 

So non-governmental organizations that attempt to influence other governments, like Sudan's, should be tried in court as traitors. Corporations who attempt to influence other governments the same?

So non-governmental organizations that attempt to influence other governments, like Sudan's, should be tried in court as traitors. Corporations who attempt to influence other governments the same?

If they break American laws such as the Logan Act, then they should be prosecuted. If they are acting with the government's blessing or not attempting to meddle in American foreign policy, then they would not be breaking American laws. Are you opposed to enforcing the existing laws?

If they break American laws such as the Logan Act, then they should be prosecuted. If they are acting with the government's blessing or not attempting to meddle in American foreign policy, then they would not be breaking American laws. Are you opposed to enforcing the existing laws?

 

From what I gather, Jimmy Carter is in violation of the Logan Act according to your interpretation. Similarly, would an NGO or corporation who negotiates with any foreign government not be in violation of that law?

 

Also, why as this law, in its 200+ year existence, never been used to prosecute anyone?

Are you serious? The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Iran. Would Carter also be free to negotiate directly with Iran to "induce them" to change their behavior? If that is Carter's defense, then let him present it in court.

 

After giving this matter some additional consideration, I see the flaw in my argument. You are correct, denying Carter the right to travel abroad would put us on par with East Germany, which attempted to hold all of its citizens prisoners, including its traitors and other undesirables.

 

Our government should make sure that when it revokes Carter's passport that both of his feet are planted on foreign soil and then deny him reentry. (Place him on the terrorist watch list with his Hamas friends.) Carter would then be free to negotiate with any nation or terrorist organization as a free agent.

 

 

Of course I am serious. The exists the way it does for a reason. Not so you, me or the president can change it to suit our needs, without proper procedure.

 

Don't we have real problems to deal with, instead of worrying about Jimmy Carter of all people?

From what I gather, Jimmy Carter is in violation of the Logan Act according to your interpretation. Similarly, would an NGO or corporation who negotiates with any foreign government not be in violation of that law?

I have already answered this question. If an NGO or corporation negotiates with a foreign government against the interests of the United States (as defined by the executive branch, which is charged with conducting US foreign policy), then they should be prosecuted.

 

Also, why as this law, in its 200+ year existence, never been used to prosecute anyone?Good question. I think that the time to use it is way past due. Reagan threatened to use it against Jesse Jackson but he never followed through.

 

Do you believe that private citizens should be free to negotiate their own deals with foreign governments, whether those negotiations are detrimental with ongoing negotiations by the President or his (or her) State Department? Would you be okay with Bush and Cheney undermining President Obama's foreign policy efforts against the expressed will of his Secretary of State?

Do you believe that private citizens should be free to negotiate their own deals with foreign governments, whether those negotiations are detrimental with ongoing negotiations by the President or his (or her) State Department? Would you be okay with Bush and Cheney undermining President Obama's foreign policy efforts against the expressed will of his Secretary of State?

 

What power would Pres. Bush or VP Cheney have, once another is in office? What power does former Pres. Carter have now?

Of course I am serious. The exists the way it does for a reason. Not so you, me or the president can change it to suit our needs, without proper procedure.

 

Don't we have real problems to deal with, instead of worrying about Jimmy Carter of all people?

I answered your questions, yet you dodged mine. Would the law be applicable to Iran, which is not formally recognized as a government by the United States? If so, then why would it not apply to Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Authority.

 

Do we have more important issues to deal with than Jimmy Carter's feeble efforts to show up the Bush administration? Of course we do - but we have been blessed with brains capable of multi-tasking and this is an issue that has captured my (and apparently your) attention.

Do you believe that private citizens should be free to negotiate their own deals with foreign governments, whether those negotiations are detrimental with ongoing negotiations by the President or his (or her) State Department? Would you be okay with Bush and Cheney undermining President Obama's foreign policy efforts against the expressed will of his Secretary of State?

 

Assuming it isn't treasonous, which is apparently different than a violation of the Logan Act, then I have no real qualms with it.

I answered your questions, yet you dodged mine. Would the law be applicable to Iran, which is not formally recognized as a government by the United States? If so, then why would it not apply to Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Authority.

 

Do we have more important issues to deal with than Jimmy Carter's feeble efforts to show up the Bush administration? Of course we do - but we have been blessed with brains capable of multi-tasking and this is an issue that has captured my (and apparently your) attention.

 

The law would NOT be applicable to Iran, either, then. You know, I have no problem with former Pres. Carter talking to any person about moving toward a more peaceful existance.

 

The only reason it has captured my attention is that it is one of those non-issues in my book, but it just bothers me as to how some of you are so up in arms over it...how we tend to seem to want to push ourselves toward becoming like the very "evil" in the world that we are trying to defeat.