Jimmy Carter: what to do?

Former President Jimmy Carter would like to negotiate peace between Israel and Hamas. Israel eschews those entreaties. Hamas embraces President Carter, but does Hamas embrace peace?

My friend at scoffery.com called for the arrest of former President Jimmy Carter for his sympathy with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

What to do with President Carter? He means well, I believe. However, the actions and behaviors of Hamas and those associated organizations exhibit no interest in peace, only the complete removal of Israel from her current geographic location. Israel tired of the continued attacks: combat and verbal, refuses Carter as an envoy.

Are Carter’s efforts a crime? Not according to any statute I’ve read. Not much middle ground for negotiation. Can’t blame Israel for being mute and deaf.

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Politics

16 responses to “Jimmy Carter: what to do?

  1. Actually, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

    I believe that Hamas is officially an Enemy of the US and that Carter’s liaison with them could be construed as “aid and comfort.” It would be a prosecutorial stretch to convict, but I believe – if it wasn’t Jimmy the Peanut – an indictment could be achieved.

  2. salmonandgrits

    I see your point, however, Carter has a long history of trying to settle dispute between disagreeing/warring nations. It would be a great stretch and one few prosecutors would consider much less to charge Carter. Intent is a necessary element of all crimes. Carter’s intent, while perhaps misguided, is to resolve conflict, I think.

  3. Oh, I absolutely agree that Carter is untouchable. I’m just not sure if “good intentions” mitigate poor actions.

  4. Jimmy Carter does not mean well. He has an entire history of Anti-Semitism and finally wrote the book last year. http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger101102.asp

    Is a good summation of Carter, a truly disgusting person. Here is but a small quote:

    “The ex-president is known as Joe Human Rights, but he’s mighty selective about whose human rights to champion. If you live in Marcos’s Philippines, Pinochet’s Chile, or apartheid South Africa, he’s liable to care about you. If you live in Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Ethiopia, Communist Nicaragua, Communist North Korea, Communist . . .: screw you.

    Remember when the Left used to say, “Okay, maybe the West has ‘political rights,’ but the East has ‘social rights’”? Carter isn’t far off from that. A mission statement of his Center reads, “‘Human rights’ is a broad term, encompassing freedom from oppression and freedom of speech to the right to food and health.” This is on the way to Erich Honecker. And as Jeane Kirkpatrick — whom Carter also openly despises — points out, it’s amazing how those who lack the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, and so on, also tend to lack food, shelter, and health.

    In a 1997 op-ed piece entitled “It’s Wrong to Demonize China” (also for the New York Times), Carter wrote — and forgive the awkward prose — “American criticism of China’s human rights abuses are justified, but their basis is not well understood. Westerners emphasize personal freedoms, while a stable government and a unified nation are paramount to the Chinese. This means that policies are shaped by fear of chaos from unrestrained dissidents or fear of China’s fragmentation by an independent Taiwan or Tibet. The result is excessive punishment [excessive punishment!] of outspoken dissidents and unwarranted domination of Tibetans.”

    Carter said that “ill-informed commentators in both countries have cast the other side as a villain and have even forecast inevitable confrontation between the two nations.” You see the exquisite moral equivalence between a giant and repressive Communist state and the American republic. He then said, “Mutual criticisms are proper and necessary [mutual criticisms, mind you: Communist China, America . . .], but should not be offered in an arrogant or self-righteous way, and each of us should acknowledge improvements made by the other.” Carter arrogant or self-righteous, ever? Improvements made by the United States, too?”

    In order to be an honest broker one needs to be honest, Carter just yesterday laid a wreath on Arafat’s grave! Arafat murdered a US Ambassador in Sudan and countless other American’s, but since they were Jewish Americans the press does not cover these deaths.

  5. Oh the law he broke is the Logan act – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

    He should be flogged, but I will settle for arrest and detainment.

  6. salmonandgrits

    I skipped the book. Perhaps my myopic view is the problem the rest of the country has: ill-informed. He just seems like a harmless little old man. Hard to see sinister intentions when I’m ill-informed.

  7. I doubt that any sane person could describe Carter as an anti-Semite. It is true though that he doesn’t approve of Israel’s actions against the Palestinians though. Of course most of the world agrees with him on that point. Denouncing Israel is not being anti-Semite. Only Zionists would claim that it does.

    That doesn’t make it OK for him to defy the will of US government though. Both the treason statutes and the Logan act (Thank you, jweaver; I forgot that one) apply to his actions.

  8. salmonandgrits

    Again, folks, in order to prosecute someone you MUST establish intent. Are his actions prudent? No. Are his actions criminal? No, no way to prove that specific intent to commit the crime charged.

    I’m no Zionist (whatever that might actually be), but I believe Israel is doing the best it can in a bad situation without pulling out big guns and running over everyone, including non-Hamas members.

  9. salmonandgrits

    Jweaver is perfectly sane. He believes fervently in many things.
    Please keep the insults to a minimum.

  10. You must only prove intent to break the law, not intent to cause harm. Carter intended it meet with Hamas against the will of the US government which violates the law.

  11. Carter has a rich history of anti-Semitism and there is no sense denying it any longer. He has constantly violated the Logan act and it is his intent to do so.

  12. Now I don’t – and have never – liked Carter, but can you cite some of his anti-Semitism, jweaver? I’ve no memory of his speaking or acting badly towards Jews, just denouncing some of the nation of Israel’s behaviors.

  13. Carter has long maintained that Jews run the media and his hatred of Israel always falls on anti-semitic under pennings. He has in the past, minimalized the Holocaust and has a long history of ill-thought statements on the Jewish people. Again, understand what zionism is. Zionism is the belief for a Jewish homeland in Israel. People that fault Israel for being Jewish never fault Saudi Arabia for being Muslim, Japan for being Shintist, India for being Hindi, and Tibet for Buddhist. There’s the rub, nationalism is only wrong when done by Jews, therefor anti-Zionism tends to be based on a ground of anti-Semitism.

  14. It’s hard to hand the man a Nobel for his efforts and call him anti-semitic. Meeting with Hamas to try to get them to negotiate and abide by past agreement could hardly be called aid and confort. It’s an absurd comment to make. And contrary to Bushite ideology, not speaking to your adversaries only indicates your unwillingness to look for peace first. To violate the Logan act you have to illegally negotiate on the behalf of the US Government to which Carter knows quite well. To Zionists an anti-semite is any rejectionist of any origin. Not much wiggle room there. I don’t feel guilty, Sorry!

  15. Puddy, All sorts of despicable people have won your precious Nobel award, it is a meaningless piesce of puffery that once was a great thing… Arafat won the award for gosh sakes. And if you had any sense of decency you would realize that his honoring of Arafat the murderer precludes him from any real option as a negotiator, as does his offer to be the Hamas rep! Get real.

  16. I have a clear distinction of who I support. Anyone who mediates for peace.
    I have a clear symbiotic compassion for the beautiful jewish and palestinians people. What I have distain for is MOSSAD, HAMAS, and the outer driving forces of governments internally and externally that drive an agenda that puts no value on human life. They, along with Arafat, Sharon, and other figures over this struggle can all be called murderers. Please do not distinguish some as soldiers and others as murderers. I wouldn’t condemn you for putting wreath on G W Bush’s grave. I have no love for any President. Yet I find nothing in Carter that cannot be found clearly visible in Clinton, Bush1 and Bush2. The truth is hard to know from Media and Propaganda. If we went to see for ourselves, we both might be a lot clearer on the reality. Thanks for your response.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s