It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008: Did Obama Violate the Logan Act During His Iraq Visit?

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Last time I looked Obama was president.

Treaty Clause




posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Boadicea

well of course your right....everything Obama does is wrong, anything that republicans do wrong, is Obama's fault....makes perfect looney toon sense to me......



No. Let me quote myself in the OP:

"In my opinion: The Logan Act is a stupid useless law and should be repealed or rewritten. So no, I don't think any of them should be charged and prosecuted. It's all politics... and, of course, divide-and-conquer. "



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Boadicea

Last time I looked Obama was president.

Treaty Clause


Obama was not President in July of 2008 during the referenced trip and discussion with the Prime Minister of Iraq, as he directly undermined then-President Bush's negotiations with Iraq.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
But I'm not asking what the GOP can or will do... I'm asking what you think should be done and why or why not.


Nail them all, IF what Obama did was indeed interference. 1 count for Obama. 47 counts for the Senate.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yea I edited.

But I do have to ask: if you think its a stupid law and nobody should be prosecuted and tried for it, why bother posting it at all? Is there any point to it beyond "look what he did look what he did!" or no?
edit on 12-3-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

But I do have to ask: if you think its a stupid law and nobody should be prosecuted and tried for it, why bother posting it at all? Is there any point to it beyond "look what he did look what he did!" or no?


Um... for discussion among people who wish to discuss the various implications and nuances of the law? (Some of us like that kind of stuff)... to better understand the partisan position who would give their party a free pass and throw the back at the other party... to discuss both the separation of powers in combination with the equal powers of the three branches of government, and how they both balance and oppose each other... whatever one chooses to bring up in regards to the issue, I'll give it a go.

But it's not about the people involved. It's not right or wrong just because it's Obama who did it. And it's not right or wrong just because GOP Senators did it.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Boadicea

Last time I looked Obama was president.

Treaty Clause

He wasn't in 2008.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Boadicea
But I'm not asking what the GOP can or will do... I'm asking what you think should be done and why or why not.


Nail them all


That's fair enough.

Either that... or just repeal the law and stop using it as a political chip.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
But I do have to ask: if you think its a stupid law and nobody should be prosecuted and tried for it, why bother posting it at all? Is there any point to it beyond "look what he did look what he did!" or no?


Because I posited that the Senate may have been in violation of the LA. I'd wager that few here have heard of it until I brought it up. The debate tactics of late are to Google something that may be out there to deflect from the issue. And here we are.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Allow me to reply to your condescension with some of my own: wait, people come here to discuss things?!?

I'm terribly sorry. Your OP seemed to have a bit of a slant to it (obama was wrong, GOP folks were right) and you then went on to name several other democrats, all while referring to GOP'ers collectively.

Silly me, wondering if there was agenda here or not. That would certainly be a first for politics on ATS I suppose



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Reread your own source: Obama traveled to Iraq as a Senator (which many have done) due to criticism from the Republicans that he hadn't visited the region. In fact many senators and Congressmen take such "fact-finding" trips. He did not however negotiate with the Iraqi government any treaties. Show where he wrote a letter stating to the Iraqis not to waste their time negotiating with then President Bush because he would invalidate such negotiations? As a candidate he had all the right to state what his own position would be. That is no secret. Again, the OP is comparing apples and oranges.

This is not even remotely the same as the 47 Senators stepping over the current president to contact Iranian leaders directly, telling them no matter what they negotiate, they would negate it. That is direct interference with US foreign policy as

PS: your sources are all derived from the NY Post piece, and the NY Times which quoted from the NYP is also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Both are his media outlets, the NYP has a history as a rumor mill, which Murdoch's other media outlets can then "quote," lending these types of smears more credibility than they would otherwise have. Murdoch reduced the New York Post to a right-wing tabloid. So if you want to allege the Obama was violating the Logan Act in 2008, how about a source that isn't historically known for fabricating RW rumors.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

*quickly closes the 11 Google tabs that were open*

Oh really? That's a thing?

Oddly enough I had heard of the Act, long long ago in school. Fairly interesting story behind it I think.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I agree with you to an extent. The language of the Logan Act is very imprecise and if the goal is to have something that is actually enforceable, it needs to be replaced. There won't be any prosecution and everyone (who lives in reality) on both sides of the aisle knows it. Questions about Logan Act violations are used as a form of partisan political saber rattling every few years.

In my opinion, then Senator Obama's visit was in bad form, however, I think there are some distinctions to be made:

1. The Iraqi Foreign Minister was not a representative of a government with which we had an adversarial relationship.
2. As a Senator and presidential candidate it was abundantly clear that he was expressing an opinion and not pretending to possess an authority he did not or making what amounted to threats.

The second distinction I believe is particularly important. In short, it really comes down to an issue of the severity of the transgression. Was Obama wrong in 2007? Perhaps but what the GOP has been playing at recently is exponentially more corrosive to the President's ability to conduct foreign affairs. So much so that I have a hard time even comparing the two.
edit on 2015-3-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Allow me to reply to your condescension...


I apologize if you read condescension in my reply. You suggested my only intention was to point fingers, and in so doing left out the possibility of discussion. I didn't intend to be condescending when I said it.

Further, obviously not everyone on ATS wants to discuss such things or every single member who has been online since I posted this would have replied. I was only acknowledging that much.

And, to be honest, I really didn't know where you were coming from. First you thought you needed to educate me on Obama's current status as President and his power to negotiate with foreign powers, not because I misunderstood anything, but because you did. I wasn't even snotty in my reply to you.

Then you question my intentions, positing only one possibility, thus excluding all others, but at no time did you directly address the subject of the OP and my questions.

And when I reply, you accuse me of being condescending. Huh???


I'm terribly sorry.


Please don't apologize. You are welcome to think and comment as you wish.


Your OP seemed to have a bit of a slant to it (obama was wrong, GOP folks were right) and you then went on to name several other democrats, all while referring to GOP'ers collectively.


In context with current events, there are 47 GOP senators being accused of treason with calls for their head, by someone who engaged in activity which also violated the Logan Act. That's quite a conflict of interest, not to mention a double standard.

But if you think it's pertinent to the conversation and would like to post links to other Republicans who have engaged in similar activity and were -- or were not -- charged with violations of the Logan Act, please do so.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Reread your own source: Obama traveled to Iraq as a Senator (which many have done)


As already stated, I have no problem with that, and to my knowledge, neither does anyone else, so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up again.


...due to criticism from the Republicans that he hadn't visited the region.


So? People can say what they will... Obama's a big boy and makes his own decisions.


He did not however negotiate with the Iraqi government any treaties.


Neither did the GOP Senators under scrutiny, but many are calling for prosecution.


Show where he wrote a letter stating to the Iraqis not to waste their time negotiating with then President Bush because he would invalidate such negotiations?


If that were the only possible means by which one could be in violation of the Logan Act, then the lack thereof would indeed be exonerating. But it's not. So the point is moot.


As a candidate he had all the right to state what his own position would be.


Of course he did. I would take that even further and say that he has every right as a citizen to exercise his first amendment right to do so. But so do the Senators.


That is no secret.


But his conversation with the Prime Minister was private, so you and I really don't know what all Obama did or didn't say, do we? On the other hand, the letter from the Senators was public, so we do know exactly what they said.


Again, the OP is comparing apples and oranges.


Nope... Just comparing red team and blue team!


This is not even remotely the same as the 47 Senators stepping over the current president to contact Iranian leaders directly, telling them no matter what they negotiate, they would negate it.


Well, you're right to the extent that the GOP Senators were acting on behalf of their constituents, doing their job... and Obama was a presidential candidate acting on his own behalf.

But the Senators did not say they "would," they said they "could," because that is their job.


PS: your sources are all derived from the NY Post piece...


Accuracy in Media is owned by Rupert Murdoch?


So if you want to allege the Obama was violating the Logan Act in 2008, how about a source that isn't historically known for fabricating RW rumors.


I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to provide a source that proves Obama was lying about going to Iraq and discussing ongoing negotiations by the President with the Iraqi Prime Minister, please do so.

Regarding the question in my OP: Overall, then, is it fair to say that you think the GOP Senators should be prosecuted for their perceived violation, but not Obama?



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

I agree with you to an extent. The language of the Logan Act is very imprecise and if the goal is to have something that is actually enforceable, it needs to be replaced.


Thank you! Yes!


There won't be any prosecution and everyone (who lives in reality) on both sides of the aisle knows it. Questions about Logan Act violations are used as a form of partisan political saber rattling every few years.


I hope you're right.... I'm not sure our Congress Critters live in reality though. The partisanship has reached levels of epic silly proportions.


In my opinion, then Senator Obama's visit was in bad form, however, I think there are some distinctions to be made:

1. The Iraqi Foreign Minister was not a representative of a government with which we had an adversarial relationship.


Good point, and well taken. I had not thought of it that way, but it is an important distinction. Not one the Logan Act makes, but for my purposes, I agree.


2. As a Senator and presidential candidate it was abundantly clear that he was expressing an opinion and not pretending to possess an authority he did not or making what amounted to threats.


I agree that he was not claiming he had such power yet -- but as a candidate, he was indeed invoking that potential and/or promise. Not that it changes my mind on the Logan Act and prosecution though.


The second distinction I believe is particularly important. In short, it really comes down to an issue of the severity of the transgression. Was Obama wrong in 2007? Perhaps but what the GOP has been playing at recently is exponentially more corrosive to the President's ability to conduct foreign affairs. So much so that I have a hard time even comparing the two.


I'm still thinking about this....



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The GOP Senators in the letter did step beyond the norm, however. They told the Iranian leaders that there was no point in negotiating with Obama since they had no intention of agreeing to it.

That is why they have been called out for their action, as noted, this was a "first time ever" in our history something like this had been done.

It is not just Democrats noting this either, the criticism has been coming from all sides.

Now, as far as political dirty tricks go, there have been previous accusations of interfering in foreign policy, most notable Nixon with the 1968 Paris peace talks, and Regan with the Mullahs in Iran in 1979/1980.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, no one has made such an accusation against Obama for having visited Iraq in 2008. It should be noted McCain was also a candidate and also visited Iraq, and several other countries we were embroiled with as well. Visits like these are not the same as what the 47 Senators did with their letter and the content of the letter was a clear attempt to sabotage nuclear negotiations between Obama and Iran.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."


So how then is the prez getting shorted? The treaty is supposed to be ratified by the senate am I right? Lette r All they did is point out that Obama can say whatever he wants to Iran but without the approval of the legislative branch the treaty is useless. Yea Obama gets to negotiate to his hearts content, but he is only part of the equation. Get your paper bags and breathe deep folks.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The actual text of the letter for everyone's easy reference (including my own!)

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Source: Wall Street Journal



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

The GOP Senators in the letter did step beyond the norm, however.


Maybe, depending on how one looks at it; but beyond the norm is not criminal in and of itself.


They told the Iranian leaders that there was no point in negotiating with Obama since they had no intention of agreeing to it.


According to the letter I read (and posted above), no, that's not what they said.


What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.


Perhaps a better phrasing would have been, "we are required to consider," rather than "we will consider," which is ambiguous.... And I would have prefaced the statement with the qualifying, "that is not approved by the Congress," just to emphasize that it is a conditional statement.... but they basically just explained the Constitutional and political realities. There was no negotiation, no threats, no comment on the content of the negotiations -- or even the treaty/agreement for that matter.


That is why they have been called out for their action, as noted, this was a "first time ever" in our history something like this had been done.


I wish I could believe that. There was no good reason for the GOP Senators to write this letter. It's all political theater. They could have addressed that "open letter" to the American public and achieved the same result. But this call of treason and Logan Act violations is also political theater.


To the best of anyone's knowledge, no one has made such an accusation against Obama for having visited Iraq in 2008.


Again, not true. Such accusations have been made, as evidenced by the 2008 Accuracy in Media article, and a Google search confined to 7/1/08 thru 11/1/08. Apparently your sources never mentioned it, nor did MSM sites, but others certainly did.


...the content of the letter was a clear attempt to sabotage nuclear negotiations between Obama and Iran.


Only if Obama is trying to mislead Iran about the Constitutional process for treaties/agreements.
edit on 12-3-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join