Can we imagine a world in which the Bush administration actually took Jamie Kirchick's advice and had Jimmy Carter arrested for violating a never-enforced 1799 law? I might encourage them to do it just for the entertainment value. Does Kirchick seriously think this should happen or is this just one of those "it's Jimmy Carter so you can say whatever about him" kind of situations? I'd say we're more likely to see George W. Bush on trial in the Hague than Carter charged with Logan Act violations.
« Her Name is Her Name | Main | Blogger Merit »
Get Carter
16 Apr 2008 11:12 am
Comments (25)
Can anyone think of even a *single* TNR column by Kirchick that had something nice to say about Democrats, for a change?
Martin Peretz frequently writes hawkish trash for WSJ.COM too, but at least he pretends to be a Democrat and he is an Obama supporter. "Kirchickenhawk" is the real deal, though -- his writing is totally indistinguishable from the likes of Michael Goldfarb and the other wingnutters over at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
MARCU$
It is a particularly funny rant because in the end Kirchick makes, as an additional point, that Hamas does not even count as a foreign government. He says this makes the case more egrigious. But in reality it simply makes the ludicrous application of the law not even apply.
The argument becomes Carter has violated the law by meeting with a foreign government without approval. And to make matters worse, it wasn't even a foreign government.
I would normally take a dim view on any extra-governmental attempts at diplomacy; but acquiesce when the government is incapable/ unwilling to engage in any diplomacy themselves. Kirchick's idea presented of Carter as some kind of super criminal juxtaposed onto the image most people have of him is amusing though. Throw Habitat for Humanity Jimmy in the pokey but keep Scooter and the gang free.
This is a great rightwing lunatic fantasy. But it would be even better if Israel arrested Carter. For terrorism! And they could torture him too.
What Lon said. Anyone with a fifth-grade education should be able to deduce that the Logan Act doesn't apply here.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear the chorus for this get louder, via Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.
I think if they did this, though, they'd set the groundwork for accusing anything Obama may do regarding the torture memos and whatnot as a purely partisan act. It would be a shameless act against a respected US president, but it could just end up saving their asses from Obama's DoJ.
Or, even, it could be perceived as an opportunity to derail Obama's candidacy, completing the Obama-Carter hopemonger and Obama-terrorist sympathizer circuit.
/cynic
seems to me that George W. Bush (the W stands for 'war criminal') has violated a few laws himself, and of more recent vintage and more consequence than the Logan Act.
Of course, he said the magic word 'war', which makes him a king.
IOKIYAR. *sigh*
I must have missed the part where Kirchik advocates arresting anyone.
Then again, we know how Matthew hates it when someone attributes views to another person that that other person doesn't hold!
The Logan Act was brought to you by the same people (the Federalists in their last days) who brought you the Alien Act and the Sedition Act. The idea was to make any dissent against his royal majesty John Adams a crime. The Sedition Act in particular made any attack on any of a long list of officials a crime. However, the Vice President was left off the list, since the VP at the time, Thomas Jefferson, was a bitter opponent of the Federalists.
And John Adams's presidency was a far darker period than you'd think by reading David McCullough. Had the Federalists maintained power, we would have entered a period of presidential dictatorship (without term limits), much like the rule of Oliver Cromwell.
Just to remind everyone, fucktard Kirchik also in the same article accuses Nancy Pelosi of violating the Logan act by going to Syria. He conveniently forgets that a Rethuglican delegation led by Congressmen Frank Wolf went there the previous week and Congressman Darrel Issa went there after the Pelosi trip. As usual with fucking cocksuckers like Kirchik, Rethuglican violations don't count.
...and lest we forget, CLINTON LIED ABOUT ORAL SEX! RULE OF LAW!!!1ONE!!1!! RULE OF LAW!!!11ONE!11*
*does not apply to Republicans.
"And John Adams's presidency was a far darker period than you'd think by reading David McCullough."
True. I also notice that the trouble is usually referred to as caused "by the Federalists" and during "Adams' presidency". People seem hesitant to come right out and lay the blame on Adams. He was a bad president who abused his power. He was still a great man who did a lot for the country, but he was significantly corrupted by power.
Al: "I must have missed the part where Kirchik advocates arresting anyone."
???
First, Kirchik lays out the statute, with its penalty of three years in jail and/or a fine, and then at the end states that "a strong case could be made that Jimmy Carter has been in constant violation" of this very statute, with its penalty (remember, Al?) of three years in jail and/or a fine.
Clearly he doesn't come right out and say "Arrest Jimmy Carter!" because he believes, mistakenly, that his readers (including Al) have an IQ greater than 50, and can make the connection between accusing someone of breaking the law and advocating certain specific legal consequences.
No, Estrien, pointing out that someone is in violation of a statute is not the same as advocating they be arrested for the violation. I can point out that you were driving 56 MPH without advocating that you get ticketed.
I can point out that you were driving 56 MPH without advocating that you get ticketed.
What would be the point of pointing it out, then? To manifest some sort of OCD?
To point out that he shouldn't be doing it, of course. Not only is it immoral, but illegal too.
Maybe George H.W. Bush should be arrested to for all the gov'ts he met with while shilling for The Carlyle Group.
I wonder about all those Americans who've met QEII at the races and the dog shows. She's the head of England. Throw 'em in the clink? And is meeting her immoral, Al?
Dubya has gone AWOL from a military committment. He's robbed from and run several companies into the ground. He bilked Texas for money under the guise of owning a baseball team. He's bought, sold and abused various drugs. He's tortured and killed animals. He's participated in the theft of two national elections via manipulation of both the vote and the Justice Department. Never once has he suffered a legal sanction amounting to any noticeable pain, suffering and redress on his part. Does anyone have any reason to believe NOW sanctions or punishment are coming his way? Why? His life's pattern is one of unfettered leeway to do exactly as he damn well pleases regardless of any laws or social norms. It's not about to change.
Al,
You win the disingenuous sweepstakes.
I think George Bush is a war criminal. Don't you dare jump to the conclusion that I would like to see him at the Hague! Especially if I lead off with the language of the Conventions and their penalties and post it on the net...
I would think a large part of the point of this commentary is to enrage progressives. Pointing out that their darling president and freedom's hero and his (and their) politics are about as popular as poison ivy sends them into depression/rage which expresses itself in the fantasy life that fill the pages of Commentary, and the National Review and the Weekly Standard and the Washington Post. I am sure more Americans want Bush and Cheney behind bars than subscribe to American/Israeli neocon views.
"True. I also notice that the trouble is usually referred to as caused "by the Federalists" and during "Adams' presidency". People seem hesitant to come right out and lay the blame on Adams. He was a bad president who abused his power. He was still a great man who did a lot for the country, but he was significantly corrupted by power."
Except that Adams was never really the leader of the Federalists, even most of his own cabinet, and especially the congress. Hamilton was. You're right though, he ws a bad president, with one redeeming decision: he managed to avoid war with France.
The time to have busted Jimmy Carter under the Logan Act was when he meddled in US diplomacy with N Korea and messed up Bill Clinton's negotiations. Clinton could have done it and avoided accusations of partisianship - all reports said he was more infuriated by that stunt than anything but the Lewinsky scandal - but was at a low ebb in his Presidency and either had bigger fish to fry or lacked the balls.
All the Presidents who have succeeded Carter detested the man. They give Carter no respect. A pariah. Deservedly so. He has messed up quite a few American positions overseas.
I like that flick: Michael Caine, swingin London, northern England decaying; that's a real classic.
Carter threatened the people who went to Iran (the "Ramsey Clark trip") under the Logan Act. His Administration went farther down the road toward prosecution than is generally recognized, so there'd be a nice bit of irony - and entertainment - in seeing some high level mention of the Logan Act applied to him.
Comments closed April 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Jamie Kirchick has been growing increasingly tedious for months. His bitterness over the failure of the gay community to accept his unwaveringly archconservative views seems to be driving him to distraction. He's been wildly lashing out a random targets for quite some time, but this is a doozy.
Matt - you need to ask Andrew to take Jamie out to lunch and sit him down for a talk. Andrew's had more than his share of issues with the gay community over the years, but he's made peace with them and himself, and his writing's the better for it. I don't think Kirchick's a lost cause - he just needs another, successful, respected gay conservative to show him the way....
Posted by jamois | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM