Latest from the not-so-swift vets

The BBQ Pit
21

Re: the McCarthy question. After a frustrating search, I posed the question with a friend. He related his recollection, and it rings a bell, though I have yet to substantiate it, but doubtless someone with better skills than myself can.

Eugene McCarthy, D-MN, made an unofficial contact with the N Vietnamese delegation in Paris. There was the expected display of outrage, fuss and feathers, with a similar charge of treasonous “negotiations” being leveled. Upon review, it was found by D of J to be inappicable, since McCarthy only sought information: he made no offers, he was not in a position to make an offer, and the NV delegation was entirely aware of that. Therefore, no “negotiation” was possible, since no basis for a “negotiation” existed. Kerry studied that opinion, and determined that, on that basis, his mission to Paris was equally legal, and that was the crux of his statement to the Senate panel: that he was mindful of the legal opinion as regards McCarthy, and conducted himself accordingly.

I emphasize that this is memory only. I suspect strongly that it can be verified.

If this is so, would friend Scylla be willing to admit Kerry had every reason to expect that his mission was entirely legal? And did not constitute treason in any reasonable definition of the word?

22

elucidator:

I don’t know. That would be very interesting if it were true, but that’s a lot of hypotheticals.

If I were Kerry, and I had such a precedent. I would feel pretty comfortable strictly gathering information.

The law though is twofold, you’ll recall. Not only can you not negotiate, you also cannot contact with intent to influence negotiations. It seems to me that your precedent would have to address this part as well to be truly safe.

Such a cite would certainly make it extremely difficult to maintain that Kerry’s meeting demonstrates treason, and if the cite was substantially as you say I would likely concede as much.

23

Actually, that ball would be in your court. He is presumed innocent of that until you prove otherwise. John Kerry would have had no burden or obligation to perform the impossible feat of proving what his intent was not.

24

We’re in agreement. That ball would still be in play subject to reasonable proof of intent.

25

Which is to say, absent proof, one might consider ceasing to slander a decent and honorable man.

26

The *New York Times * archive lists the following article:

McCarthy, Mrs. Binh Confer for Two Hours
Jan 13, 1970.

Kerry’s meeting in Paris took place in early 1971. Clearly, this is what Kerry is referring to in his Senate testimony (certainly not Joe McCarthy!). The quotation presented to us has Kerry referencing McCarthy’s trip as the basis for his opinion that his trip was within legal boundaries. An entirely reasonable supposition.

So it would appear that the Freeper/Swiftie “treason!” hysteria is most likely a steaming load. Wouldn’t you say that seems a reasonable conclusion, Scylla?

27

Why, first you’d have to get Scylla to admit he was wrong.

That will happen at about the same time as I provide oral sex to Paris Hilton without screaming and vomitting.

28

No. I would say that would be an idiotic conclusion. Your scenario says that Binh and McCarthy met without an official capacity, that an accusation was made, and the DoJ made a ruling that Kerry studied and used as precedent.

Your headline stated simply that they met. That’s all. Give me the whole sandwich and then ask for a conclusion.

29

It’s a brilliant tactic by the Smear Vets. I thought it would be Kerry Wasn’t Really a War Hero followed by Kerry Slandered the Troops, but they managed to sneak Kerry Committed Treason in the middle. It’s funny how 30 seconds of half-truths and misrepresentations can sway the public so much. Who needs facts when you have soundbites?

Notice how skillfully they slipped Hanoi Jane into the commercial. Although she had nothing to do with Kerry, they were able to associate him with someone who is considered treasonous by most Americans. There is definitely some marketing genius behind the SBVFT campaign.

30

Oh, I see the idiocy of my thinking. I must be idiioticly thinking that Kerry’s quote, which seems to have mystified you and your fellow paragons of truth and candor over at Freep, indicates the Kerry relied upon the McCarthy precedent as evidence that his actions were as legal as McCarthy’s.

Now, how might we come to such an idiotic conclusion? Let’s set aside any notion of a D of J ruling, since, just as I said, that is a matter of memory, not citation. Absent a ruling, how might we arrive at our present state of idiocy?

Perhaps no action was taken at all? No ruling issued, because none was required, or called for. Perhaps McCarthy did what he did, and there were no dramatic repurcussions at all? Which would fit rather neatly with my contention that McCarthy’s actions, like Kerry’s, were politically repugnant to some, but nonetheless entirely legal? Yes, I think that would serve nicely. Which would explain why Kerry brought the subject up during his testimony.

You have an alternative explanation? I’m all ears. Do tell.

You know, you could have just gracefully conceded the point, wiped the egg off your face, and gone ahead. But you had to call my conclusion “idiotic”. So now I’m going to ram this right down your throat.

Stick around.

31

If you want to cite a precedent, then you have to cite the precedent so that it can be evaluated. I parse Kerry’s quote as saying that the precedent set by McCarthy makes Kerry’s meeting illegal, or on the border.

I am open to other interpretations but you have to flesh it out, if you want me to buy it.

What exactly is this precedent that allows private citizens to negotiate with foreign powers?

Sure.

  1. The precedent refers to a sitting Senator meeting with foreign powers in an official capacity while simultaneously negotiations are going on, and describes what behavior such a person may and may not engage in. John would be talking out of his ass to assume such a precedent applied to him.

  2. The precedent is that McCarthy broke the law, and Kerry is admitting to the same

  3. Their is no precedent and Kerry is talking out of his ass like when he says 80% of US soldiers are stoned 24 hours a day.

You’ve created an interesting hypothesis. Go forth and support it.

32

Profit!!!

33

Sigh.

This is war. Kerry better fight it like it is one.

34

The precedent refers only to McCarthy’s trip. The term “negotiate” is applicable only in your Freeper fantasy. Since you are the one making the accusation, it is up to you to define “negotiation” meaningfully and specify how Kerry’s trip qualifies as a “negotiation”. If you can’t do so, then you’re talking out of your ass.

The term “precedent” herein refers only to a previous act, not a legal precedent. Which I’m pretty sure you know. Kerry is plainly stating that he took McCarthy’s trip as a precedent in the sense that if it were legal for McCarthy, it was legal for him as well. That is the plain meaning of the context, without your weasel gymnastics.

Its embarassing to watch you squirm. Why don’t you just ‘fess up and move on to another crock o’ shit?

35

A bit more about the Logan Act, the legal structure upon which friend Scylla and the Freeper hive-mind strenuosly seek to base a charge of treason…

http://slate.msn.com/id/2071186/#ContinueArticle

(emphasis added)

It would seem, then, that Kerry had every reason to believe that his actions were legal, at least so far as the Logan Law is concerned. Unless, of course, he engaged in “negotiations”, a term as yet undefined by Kerry’s accusers. Got that definition handy, Scylla, and some proof that it applies in this instance?

Or would you prefer to let eloquent silence declaim the emptiness of your accusations?

36

It’s in Kerry’s quote. He seems to recognize that he’s negotiating and that he’s not supposed to.

Been their done that. It’s not just negotiations, it’s influencing them that’s not allowed. His endorsement of Binh’s position while negotiations are ongoing is an influence.

No I don’t. You claimed there was a ruling. That implies a legal precedent. I would like to see it.

My weasel gymnastics style will defeat your belly-crawling snake style of gymnastics any day. You just can’t say there’s a precedent. You have to explain what it is and how it applies. If McCarthy met in his official capacity as a senator that doesn’t give precedent to Kerry as a civilian. This is your hypothesis. You need to flesh it out. Or not. All you have is that McCarthy met Binh, and I don’t even have a cite for that from you, just your word.

Get fucking real! Your the person that demanded a cite for Democrats calling Republicans Nazis, and then you picked and played games the whole way through and wouldn’t concede shit. Now you expect foist off your memory and a hypothesis and I’m supposed to accept this?

Get me a cite explaining the circumstances and context of McCarthy’s visit. Get me a site showing the DOJ ruling.

Do this and we have something to talk about.

And if you want to do it, do it in GD where the discussion belongs. I can do without the namecalling.

37

What name-calling? He’s just stating facts.

Similarly, it’s hardly name-calling to say “Scylla is a peddler of bullshit,” since you are peddling bullshit…

38

No, it isn’t. He said specificly that he was not negotiating. You claim that he was, since that is what you claim was illegal, even treacherous. Or at least, that was the line you were pitching until it got shot out from under you.

So now you claim that you don’t have to define your accusation because that isn’t all of it? Are you going to bail on your charge of “negotiating” and claim its about “influencing”? Might be wise, since you can’t back it up. So lets just stay focused, for the moment. Before we take up the issue of “influencing” (whatever the Hell that means), are we now assured that you have abandoned the “negotiation” charge? You’re kind of all over the map here.

Nope. Said so above, that such was merely my recollection. And I went to considerable length to be certain that I was not implying a legal precedent. But it is sort of like that, in a very informal way: if person A can commit action B without legal consequences, it is entirely reasonable that person C can commit the same action with a reasonable expectation that it is permissable. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate why it would be different in Kerry’s case. Can you?

In your dreams.

Sure can. All “precedent” means, in this context, was that McCarthy’s trip preceded Kerry’s, was substantially similar, and had no legal conseqquences, hence: Kerry was reasonably assured that his trip was equally legitimate. Which is exactly what he said.

See above. Link to NY Times As to my word, I hasten to remind you that I am a Texan, our faithful adherence to strict and precise truth is the stuff of legend. You can ask Minty. Or Dewey. Or the legendary Bodoni.

Huh? Wha? Was that a digression, a diversion, or a spasm?

You can read, right? And English is your first language, correct? I clearly made my caveat, stated right up front that this relied on memory. You are the one who said that if it were so, then you would need to concede the point.

McCarthy met with the NV delegation. Whaddaya think they talked about? Sartre?

Again, I specificly noted that my recollection as to a “ruling” might have been flawed. You are hardly in a position to try to make a big Hairy Ass Deal out of it. Of course, none of this matters much if you are going to “clarify” your position to refer to “influencing” rather than “negotiating”. Is that the new! improved! Scylla position?

Besides, as the accusing party, it is up to you to prove. You claim Kerry’s trip was illegal, because he was “negotiating”. Then you refuse to define “negotiation” and point out, specificly, how his actions meet that definition. Now, busted on that, you want to change the subject to “influencing”, which you also have yet to define or clarify.

Probably not.

'Cause you lost this one.

39

Start a thread on this in GD, where we have standards, and I don’t have to deal with the monkey gallery’s name calling… If you think you can make this turd fly.

Otherwise, no thanks, and that’s final.

40

Not my “turd”, buckaroo. You’re the guy making the charges here, about how Kerry is a traitor. Pretty serious stuff. Called on it, you can’t back it up. First its “negotiations”, then its “influence” and now you claim that your sensitive soul is too easily abraded for the Pit.

Perhaps you should stick to domestic comedies, your temperment is too…delicate for this sort of thing.