http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/19/opinion/main4460105.shtml
"Thanks to reporting from Amir Taheri, the gist of which the Obama campaign has confirmed, we now know that while Obama is telling the American people he wants an end to the war, he has secretly negotiated with the government in Iraq to extend the U.S. military mission there. That is a black-and-white violation of federal criminal law. "
SNIP
"Under the “Logan Act” (now codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code) it has been against the law since the late 18th century for U.S. citizens to carry on “intercourse with any foreign government” that is aimed either “to defeat the measures of the United States” or to influence the foreign government’s dealings with the United States. Being a senator is no immunity from this statute..."
SNIP
AND IT GETS WORSE
"And all this at a time when Obama’s latest audacity consists of looking Americans in the eye and decrying the billions spent each month rebuilding a foreign country. Those billions, he now says, should be kept at home for “rebuilding” our own country.
Nice try. The Candidate of Hope is hoping that while he caterwauls about our lost billions, you won’t notice that he has already proposed the most jaw-dropping transfer of wealth in American history: taking nearly a trillion dollars out of the pockets of American taxpayers and doling it out to the world’s worst regimes through its most corrupt intermediary, the U.N.
The scam is better known as Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Sen. Joe Biden, his trusty running-mate, recently tried to slam it through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ..."
SNIP
"If the GPA became law, the United States would be required to fork up for foreign aid 0.7 percent of its gross national product through 2015. That is, Obama would skyrocket U.S. largesse from its current annual level of about $21 billion (the world’s most generous) to - you’ll want to be sitting down for this - $85 billion per year. "
SNIP
"Are you worried about the $85 billion AIG bailout? Well just imagine doing it once a year for about a decade … except with no return on your investment and with the U.N. (the people who gave us “Oil for Food”) doing what passes for the oversight - i.e., presiding over the transfer of American dollars to the very freedom-hating despots who have kept the third world poor in the first place."
WOW !!
Did Obama violate the Logan Act?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by targus, Sep 19, 2008.
Page 1 of 2
-
Yes.
As has Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, John Kerry and a number of other power hungry democrats.
None of them will ever be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean they are not committing a crime when they do so. -
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Good grief. -
That fishing expedition came home empty handed. -
Ridiculous.
The October Surprise theory refers to a purported deal between high-level Reagan campaign operatives (such as campaign manager and future CIA Director William J. Casey) and representatives of the Iranian government to delay the release of the hostages until after the November 1980 U.S. elections. Although investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded, the conspiracy's existence or lack thereof remains a subject of debate. The exact nature of the allegations lies in a potential violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798, which prohibit any private citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action. It is alleged by political opponents that the Reagan campaign, or one of Reagan's election campaign staffers, communicated with the Iranian government and asked them to extend the hostage crisis long enough to ensure that he won the 1980 elections. The main cause for suspicion was the seeming coincidence of his inauguration and the hostages' release six minutes after Reagan was sworn into office on January 20, 1981, as well as the Reagan administration's later decision to provide arms to the anti-U.S. Iranian government, allegedly in return not for freeing the hostages, but for delaying their release.[47]
However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages' release just minutes after Reagan's inauguration. This was reinforced by the fact that the personnel involved were on alert status, ready to go at a moment's notice, in the days leading up to the inauguration, and that the required equipment was already packed up and waiting to be shipped. Thus, a perceived and possibly communicated threat of invasion could also have influenced the timing of the hostage release.[48].[49] -
"Slimeball" is the name for him. Among others. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Let me guess....wikipedia :laugh: -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The wording is such that I doubt anyone will ever be charged with breaking this law.
-
BaptistBeliever said:Ridiculous.
The October Surprise theory refers to a purported deal between high-level Reagan campaign operatives (such as campaign manager and future CIA Director William J. Casey) and representatives of the Iranian government to delay the release of the hostages until after the November 1980 U.S. elections. Although investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded, the conspiracy's existence or lack thereof remains a subject of debate. The exact nature of the allegations lies in a potential violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798, which prohibit any private citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action. It is alleged by political opponents that the Reagan campaign, or one of Reagan's election campaign staffers, communicated with the Iranian government and asked them to extend the hostage crisis long enough to ensure that he won the 1980 elections. The main cause for six minutes after Reagan was sworn into office on January 20, 1981, as well as the Reagan administration's later decision to provide arms to the anti-U.S. Iranian government, allegedly in return not for freeing the hostages, but for delaying their release.[47]
However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages' release just minutes after Reagan's inauguration. This was reinforced by the fact that the personnel involved were on alert status, ready to go at a moment's notice, in the days leading up to the inauguration, and that the required equipment was already packed up and waiting to be shipped. Thus, a perceived and possibly communicated threat of invasion could also have influenced the timing of the hostage release.[48].[49]Click to expand...
You say "ridiculous" and your source says:
"investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded "
"suspicion was the seeming coincidence of his inauguration and the hostages' release"
But that seeming coincidence is explained in the last paragraph...
"a perceived and possibly communicated threat of invasion could also have influenced the timing of the hostage release."
Your souce contradicts your conclusion. -
BB doesn't often read his own sources.
Seems to be a liberal trait. -
targus said:"Under the “Logan Act” (now codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code) it has been against the law since the late 18th century for U.S. citizens to carry on “intercourse with any foreign government” that is aimed either “to defeat the measures of the United States” or to influence the foreign government’s dealings with the United States. Being a senator is no immunity from this statute..."!Click to expand...
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLeBuick said:So when McCain called Putin after Russia invaded Georgia he was violating this Logan act also. Interesting?Click to expand...
I am interested in the gymnastics you are willing to play to make this point. -
LeBuick said:So when McCain called Putin after Russia invaded Georgia he was violating this Logan act also. Interesting?Click to expand...
We know Obama put our soldiers at risk for his personal gain.
What did Mccain discuss with Putin? -
LeBuick said:So when McCain called Putin after Russia invaded Georgia he was violating this Logan act also. Interesting?Click to expand...
“intercourse with any foreign government” that is aimed either “to defeat the measures of the United States” or to influence the foreign government’s dealings with the United States.
McCain was not seeking to "defeat the measures of the United States" or to "influence the foreign government's dealings with the United States" when he called Putin.
Work on those critical thinking skills.:saint: -
targus said:McCain was not seeking to "defeat the measures of the United States" or to "influence the foreign government's dealings with the United States" when he called Putin.
Work on those critical thinking skills.:saint:Click to expand...
He spoke by phone to President Putin and White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, then quickly rearranged his schedule to make his statement on the crisis his first event of the day. And he didn't mince words.
"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," he said in a morning statement.Click to expand...
He did it vicariously through his daddy and mentor George Bush. Also, Putin believes he was the cause of the conflict.
Story -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLeBuick said:According to the act, it was not McCain's job as Senator and Presidential candidate to call Putin on behalf of the US unless directed by the President.
So he did try to "influence the foreign government's dealings with the United States"
He did it vicariously through his daddy and mentor George Bush. Also, Putin believes he was the cause of the conflict.
StoryClick to expand...
That does not meet the requirements of the Logan Act. Just wishful thinking on your part. -
LeBuick said:According to the act, it was not McCain's job as Senator and Presidential candidate to call Putin on behalf of the US unless directed by the President.Click to expand...
McCain , and Obama for that matter, can call anyone anytime they wish. that is not a violation.
They cannot negotiate against the interests of the U.S on behalf of the U.S.
Obama did exactly that.
McCain didn't.
It's that simple.
If you believe McCain did otherwise, prove it.
You source also tells us that he was , in fact, working on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Bush Administration.
You need help. -
Lebuick said:According to the act, it was not McCain's job as Senator and Presidential candidate to call Putin on behalf of the US unless directed by the President.Click to expand...
So he did try to "influence the foreign government's dealings with the United StatesClick to expand...
He did it vicariously through his daddy and mentor George Bush. Also, Putin believes he was the cause of the conflict.Click to expand...
Honestly, do you actually read any of your sources?
Do you really think this through before posting?
In my opinion most of what you post doesn't make a lot of sense. -
BaptistBeliever said:Ridiculous.
The October Surprise theory refers to a purported deal between high-level Reagan campaign operatives (such as campaign manager and future CIA Director William J. Casey) and representatives of the Iranian government to delay the release of the hostages until after the November 1980 U.S. elections. Although investigations by the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded, the conspiracy's existence or lack thereof remains a subject of debate. The exact nature of the allegations lies in a potential violation of the International Commerce Acts of 1798, which prohibit any private citizen or party from negotiating with a foreign power in matters of national policy or military action. It is alleged by political opponents that the Reagan campaign, or one of Reagan's election campaign staffers, communicated with the Iranian government and asked them to extend the hostage crisis long enough to ensure that he won the 1980 elections. The main cause for suspicion was the seeming coincidence of his inauguration and the hostages' release six minutes after Reagan was sworn into office on January 20, 1981, as well as the Reagan administration's later decision to provide arms to the anti-U.S. Iranian government, allegedly in return not for freeing the hostages, but for delaying their release.[47]
However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages' release just minutes after Reagan's inauguration. This was reinforced by the fact that the personnel involved were on alert status, ready to go at a moment's notice, in the days leading up to the inauguration, and that the required equipment was already packed up and waiting to be shipped. Thus, a perceived and possibly communicated threat of invasion could also have influenced the timing of the hostage release.[48].[49]Click to expand...
Page 1 of 2