California Man Perpetrates Immigration Fraud by Taking College Exams for Middle Eastern Students
March 15, 2010
March 15, 2010
Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Did Obama Violate the Logan Act During His Iraq Visit?
Guest Column | By Pamela Meister | September 17, 2008
The Logan Act (est. 1799): a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with
foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations
on behalf of the United States without authorization.
This week, New York Post columnist Amir Taheri made the claim that while in Iraq this summer, Barack Obama privately tried to
convince Iraqi leaders to wait until a new administration is in place
before beginning a draw-down of American troops.
According to
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay
a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He
asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US
elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,"
Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress
should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and
that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement
negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and
political confusion."
The Obama campaign issued a denial:
...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.
Let's compare two key sentences from the articles linked above:
- "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."
- 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.
It seems to me that the Obama campaign essentially confirmed what Taheri's public source said. Let's look at the Constitution.
Article Two, Section Two:
The
President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States; he may require the
opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive
departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their
respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of
impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all
other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but
the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers,
as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or
in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to
fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate,
by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next
session.
Article Two, Section Three:
Section
3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the
state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of
disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he
may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Nothing in Article One,
which covers the duties of Congress (both House and Senate), says
anything about senators engaging foreign policy unbidden by the
president - even those running for president. And somehow I doubt
President Bush called him up and asked him to take over Condoleezza
Rice's job for a day.
But my plebian education may be impeding my
interpretation of both Obama's denial and the Constitution. See, I
didn't go to Columbia or Harvard - like Sarah Palin, I graduated from a
state university, so I may not be educated enough to figure it out. I
do still have all my teeth, however, so that's one thing going for me.
Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Israel and then to Syria, where she told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks
with that nation. It came as a huge surprise to Israel's prime
minister, whose office said that "what was discussed with the House
speaker did not include any change in Israel's policy, as it has been
presented to international parties involved in the matter."
At the time, critics suggested that Pelosi had violated the tenets of the Logan Act, which is a felony. But the mainstream media avoided the topic like a hot potato and nothing was ever done about it - President Bush being too nice a guy as usual?
The
cynic in me can't help but believe that Obama wanted the Iraqis to hold
off on sending American troops home until - presumably - he is in the
Oval Office next January and can take credit for "bringing the troops
home" as per his campaign platform. It's nice to know he's thinking of
keeping one of his many campaign promises, but a little disconcerting
to think that he'd try to undermine the current president in the
process.
Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she'd ever met any
foreign heads of state, to which she answered no. Will he ask Barack
Obama what he talked about with the foreign heads of state he's met? Or
is he satisfied with questions like whether Obama will debate with McCain at a town hall?
Not
only should the media be making more of a fuss about this, but so
should the Bush administration. Seals and fancy planes aside, Barack
Obama is not yet President of the United States. And if this is how he
thinks foreign policy should be conducted - on the sly - is he really
the man we want officially directing such policy for the next four to
eight years?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Pamela Meister is a former radio broadcaster, a recovering liberal, a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and a blogger at http://blogmeisterusa.mu.nu
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
21 Comments | Post a Comment
A strategic framework agreement deals with how (in this case US troops) operate in a foreign country (In this case Iraq.) I.E. what courts American personel would be tried under if they commit crimes etc. This is doesn’t have anything to do with troop levels in Iraq. The President wouldn’t need any agreement to pull out the troops any time he or she felt like. Obama basocally echoed the complaints some members of Congress voiced here in the US when they learned of Bush trying to get an SFA deal done which could theoretically obligate the next administration to do various things in Iraq. Taheri is claiming that Zebari is saying that Obama wanted him to delay troop withdrawl. This is false.
Zebari only said that he [Obama] asked why they would not wait for the next administration before working out the legal framework in which US troops still there during the withdrawl process would operate.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp?section=1&issueno=10880&article=486505&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ar&tl=en <—-is a rough translation of an interview Zebari gave on 9/11.
This quote seems to be where Taheri gets his quote from Zebari saying he asked me….
“Q: Why not postpone Iraqi government signing the agreement with the security management that is about to leave with the expectation that the new American administration?
This question he asked me (Barak Obama) when I was in Washington some time ago I met with McCain and with Obama and Obama asked me why you urgency in signing this agreement, especially with the approaching change in the American administration and why not wait until the advent of the new administration next year even signed an agreement with A new administration and we agree on some issues and matters and the answer is with Obama, including: Iraq, I think that even if there was a democratic administration in the White House, it is better to have a policy instead of thinking exists in the file for a long time to be resolved including the nettle that the Convention are not binding The next administration be comfortable in dealing with the Iraqi people rather than the start of the crisis and their problems and seek solutions.”
Notice how there is nothing that says Obama insisted while he was talking to Zebari?
Keep in mind that in Taheri’s article only Zebari’s statement about Obama’s question is in quotes NOT the part that says Obama insisted that congress be involved. In other words Zaberi didn’t say that according to Taheri’s own article furthermore this is a position that Obama has held publicly for a long time.
Republicans will never cease with their threats of the dreaded Logan Act. Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, Louis Farrakhan, David Bonior, Jim Wright, Ramsey Clark, etc., should all be in jail under the Logan Act.
Problem is, nobody has ever been convicted under the Logan Act, and nobody ever will. It’s not a very scary threat.
Dave and Boo, you guys can’t be this stupid, or can you? Obama as well as Pelosi and Carter have done everything they can to undermine this administration. All need to be removed from office because they have done what the Logan Act states. In Carter’s case he needs to lose his retirement and be charged with treason, as well as the other two. You two are so filled with the lies of the liberal Democrats that your words have no worth. You are empty heads just like those who you align with.
ONLY MY OPINIONS
Considering that just after being elected as US
Senator, 1st term, it seems his PRIORITY was to go to Kenya, the Muslim country of his father’s family’s roots. There he CRITICIZED THEIR PRESIDENT AND STOOD ON A STAGE WITH THE OPPONENT,
ODINGA. So much civil unrest and blodshed followed, the President gave Odina some sort of power share.
WHY WAS THIS A PRIORITY FOR OBAMA? Don’t you think YOUR priority would be to learn a little more about his fellow-Senators, familiarize himself with the Senate “layout” (committees, etc).
Where IS his allegiance? HAH! Where is nation
of birth? We’ve seen no legitimate BIRTH CERTIFICATE to show his eligibility to even BE
President!
I do not trust this man. From some of his gaffe’s (Iran is tiny, no threat)(2 days later
it is A GREAT THREAT!) (To one audience FARC
in Columbia is purely acceptable.. day or so
later, TO ANOTHER AUDIENCE, FARC is horrible!)
If he can’t get his judgment of such foreign
relations, why in the world would I doubt that
he went to Iraq to try to gain some “political
upmanship” by asking to withhold withdrawal of
our troops (putting them in prolonged danger?)
This should surely be closely examined. AND
I, FOR ONE, DO NOT GIVE HIM ANY BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
The constitutional lawyer either flouted constitutional law, or he didn’t know it. He demonstrated a lack of diplomatic skills, at the very least. The Iraqi news is reporting it as fact. Why is it being ignored here?
Even if it didn’t happen, do we need someone with so little savvy asking those kinds of questions in that forum? Peoples’ lives are on the line over there.
Oh, Obama denied it. Then it didn’t happen. Never mind…
According to Obamas speech after he returned he spoke about discussing agreement with Sarkosy and Iraqi leaders, it seems to me he is working for some other government not the US. And he wants to be president, it is the money after all he has become a multi-millioner in a few months.
“Follow the Money”
He is a Democrat, therefore hating the U.S. and especially any military campaigns is seen as being patriotic by the MSM.
Bush has been hobbled all through his presidency by his policy of a “new tone” in Washington. He takes years of abuse by the Democrats and turns the other cheek. That’s why he lost the respect of both parties. Let’s hope John McCain shows his own strength and stands up to them a lot better.
red46:
“The constitutional lawyer either flouted constitutional law, or he didn’t know it.”
It’s possible that he does know Constitutional Law:
“The Logan Act is invalid on three separate grounds. First, the statute is unconstitutionally vague, in that it fails to properly inform citizens of the conduct that it proscribes, and it allows extensive discretion on the part of the executive in finding a violation. Second, the statute is overbroad; its language clearly encompasses activities which are protected by the Bill of Rights. Finally, the act is invalid based on the Robel analysis, in that the statute is not drawn with the precision necessary to afford proper respect for first amendment rights.
Given these failures, and the lack of any prosecutions under the act during the last 180 years, it is unclear why anyone should pay any attention to the statute.”
Kearney, Kevin M., “Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis,” Emory Law Journal, Winter, 1987, 36 Emory L.J. 285
Ozark where in the logan act does it say citizens of the U.S. may not ask questions about policy issues involving the U.S. when speaking in private to foreign officials? Where does it say you cannot express your opinion on a subject to a foreign official in a private meeting?
It says you may not negotiate on behalf of the US, asking a question and/or stating your position on an issue are not acts of negotiation.
Ozark do you think we should impeach Bush because Vladimir Putin says his administration instigated the mess in Georgia? We should believe Putin now?
Boo you are empty headed. It was not a question, he was negotiating, but got nowhere. He went as future president of the US, not as a member of Congress, on this tour to there and Germany to tell people how it is going to be. That shows how stupid he is about diplomacy. And it shows how stupid you are about your candidate and the law. Your stupidity also shows in your statementon Putin because on has nothing to do with the other. A typical liberal trick to change the subject or lie in order to get out of being held responsible for their actions. You need to turn off your computer and get away from the MSM lies that you subscribe to and learn to think for yourself, or does it hurt to much when you do? Ozark was 100% right, but you are either too blind or stupid to see.
Oh so “He asked me why we were not prepared to wait until after the elections…“is in fact NOT Zebari stating that Obama asked him this question? Even in Taheri’s article Zebari is quoted as saying “he asked me…” So while you are calling others stupid you contradict one of the very source quotes that this article is even based on. Even if this article was 100% accurate (which it isn’t.) you basically have the word of a foreign official against that of one of ours. Which is in fact alot like the accusations that Putin has made against the Bush admiistration.
dave742 - The Logan Act is invalid? This is not some new act just passed by Congress where lawyers can argue the merits from both sides, and that needs to be vetted by the Supreme Court for its merits! This is an Act that is established in law, and has precedents behind it now, that even more establish its validities.
The fact that Bush has no balls is the problem here - and why his original Conservative base left him when he became leftist and when he became part of the good ol’ boys group, even though the left side of that group beats on him regularly.
Liberal Republicans (like Bush and McCain) have repeatedly kissed up to the left as if that will make them like them, and they never learn they get their ass burned everytime, and a big knife in their backs.
Pelosi and Obama should be prosecuted under the Logan Act. But knowing how liberal the courts are now, they might just get off, and then the Act WOULD be invalid - the lieberal courts seem to think that they can rule by their opinions and politics rather than based on the rule of law.
So that may be why Bush does not act? If the law becomes invalid when those that break it get away with it, then every idiot and his democrat brother in Congress will be running to other countries sticking their noses in the State Affairs of this nation. And that would be not only chaos, but would also perhaps create a Constitutional crisis where one branch of government is trying to usurp the powers of another branch in violation of that document.
Democrats are not known for following the law or the rules, they really think they are above the law - it is the nature of these lawless beasts. So Bush is probably being wise to let these two instances to slide by, and make sure he publicizes them as best he can, even though the MSM will not assist him in this (surprise, surprise, they are as lawless as the liberals/Democrats). The fear of being prosecuted under the Act will probably, at least in the short term, stop it from being done as a rule, but in the long term, if liberals repeatedly violate the law, a President may be forced to prosecute and hope the Act will be ruled upon by the few judges still sitting that have not been corrupted.
The President would certainly need to shop for the right judge, but the liberal being prosecuted could also shop for a like thinking and corrupt judge.
Jack H. Hansen:
“The Logan Act is invalid?”
Yes, that’s what it said.
“If the law becomes invalid when those that break it get away with it…”
The Logan act is not invalid because people violate it and get away with it. It is invalid because it is unconstitutional. Everyone who knows law realizes this, and this is why it is never used. It’s only value is to use it as a political threat. You can’t even find a law article that defends the Act systematically. A lawyer would be disbarred if he tried. Do you know what would happen if the Justice Department under Bush actually charged Obama under this Act? It would be hilarious. The backlash would be so severe that Obama would win the election by 40 points. And the case, of course, would go nowhere.
“This is an Act that is established in law”
And there is a law that says you can’t play cards on Sunday. So what.
“and has precedents behind it now, that even more establish its validities”
The law has never been used successfully. What are the precedents, please?
More quotes:
“[The Logan Act] cuts into freedoms which we regard as having the highest value, and many of the situations in which it use has been suggested clearly involve no danger that would justify such a restraint….The Constitutional objections which have been raised against the Logan Act can be divided into three categories: extraterritoriality, infringement upon freedom of speech, and unconstitutional vagueness. The latter two seem to have considerable force.”
Detlev F. Vagts, “The Logan Act: Paper Tiger or Sleeping Giant?” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 268-302
“A strict reading of Jefferson’s passage would lead to a total monopoly by the President of any communication with another nation about U.S. foreign policy. However, hundreds of individuals have defied the Logan Act by meeting with foreign leaders and attempting to negotiate solutions to pending problems…If ever there is a dead letter in the law, it is the Logan Act and the stilted thinking that inspired it.”
Louis Fisher, “A Constitutional Structure for Foreign Affairs,” Georgia State University Law Review, Summer, 2003, 19 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1059
dave742 - a lawyer would be disbarred if he tried to defend the Logan Act? Hahahahahaha
What Peyote are you smoking, Brian?
Law or no law, the man is a naif at best. I stand by my conclusion that since the Iraqi’s are telling their people that Obama tried to negotiate the delayed end of the war, he may as well have. He opened the door with his deliberate negotiation or ham-handed inference. Either way, he looks lame.
“he demonstrated a lack of diplomatic skills, at the very least. The Iraqi news is reporting it as fact.
Even if it didn’t happen, do we need someone with so little savvy asking those kinds of questions in that forum? Peoples’ lives are on the line over there.
Oh, Obama denied it. Then it didn’t happen. Never mind… ”
It’s more important for the news to report the investigation of Palin’s troopergate daily than the investigation of Obama’s violation of the Logan Act. What has this country come to????
Not only ONCE, but eery country he went to, I believe that he went make agreements by telling all those radicals to wait until he becomes president. It will be acold day in hell before he becomes president.
O’Riley questioned Obama regarding his associations with the weathermen, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, etc. Obama responds by saying, am I guilty by association? Heck yah!! He was only 8 or 9 when the pentagon was bombed but he hung out with these guys last year! Birds of a feather… You are who you hang out with… If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… well you know the rest.
September 18 at 12:42 am | #1 | Link
Well, Obama deceived Hillary, his partymate.
He can deceive anyone especially his self-proclaimed enemy, Pres. Bush.
Obama is nothing but a fortune-seeking individual.