Thursday, 04.24.08
Citizen Carter
JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images
The Desert One debacle
May 2006
Mark Bowden analyzes the disastrous rescue mission in Iran that capsized Carter's presidency.
Thoughts of Jimmy Carter...
December 29, 2006
James Fallows comments on the mysterious parallels between George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.
Is there any living ex-president you'd less want to be trapped with on a desert island than Jimmy Carter? Judged by that yardstick, his possible prosecution under the Logan Act for his latest act of freelance diplomacy in the Middle East -- as some have come close to suggesting -- seems like a great idea. But let's be serious: the best thing you could do with this 209-year-old statute is junk it.
As written, the law forbids U.S. citizens from trying to influence a foreign government "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States," unless they're seeking redress for some "injury" they've suffered. Perhaps because its language is so broad and vague (and probably unconstitutional), the law has never been used to prosecute anyone, though over the years, outraged officials and legislators have brandished it against Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Ross Perot, and George McGovern, among others.
Carter is a serial Logan Act offender. In 1991, more than a decade after he left the White House, he wrote to members of the U.N. Security Council asking them not to side with the United States on a resolution related to the first Gulf War. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft was apopleptic. I'd have been pissed, too -- not because Carter spoke up but because he was wrong about the war. Carter was a private citizen. As long as he wasn’t claiming to represent the U.S. government, and as long as he observed other relevant U.S. laws, he should have been free to say his piece -- however misguided -- to foreign representatives. And in his defense, some of his diplomatic interventions, sanctioned or otherwise, in places like Haiti and North Korea have paid dividends (although the Clinton administration official who called him a "treasonous prick" for overstepping his brief may feel they came at too high a price).
Back in 1799, when the Logan Act was created in a partisan spat between Republicans and Federalists over the conduct of relations with France, a single prominent private individual could exert undue influence. Diplomacy has changed since then: slow-sailing envoys, demarches, and diplomatic salons have given way to night flights, e-mail, the Internet, 24/7 media coverage, and tens of thousands of nongovernmental organizations pushing their causes. And, blessing or not, more ex-presidents are out there, too. With that kind of cacophony, states can’t seriously hope to control diplomacy the way they used to -- nor should they even try.
Of course, our former chief executives have a particular responsibility to use their visibility and influence judiciously. Usually they do. If, over the long run, they don't, they risk losing their credibility, as Jimmy Carter is surely losing his.
The Carter legacyBy 2002 Chris Suellentrop was calling Jimmy Carter "the Imperial Ex-President." |
Talk is goodJoe Klein defends Jimmy Carter's outreach efforts with Hamas. |
Felon of the House?Jonathan Adler rounds up discussion about whether Nancy Pelosi violated the Logan Act when she did freelance diplomacy in Syria. |
History and case lawThis 2006 Congressional Research Service report lays out the history of the Logan Act and judicial references to the statute. |
(27)
Is there any living ex-president you'd less want to be trapped with on a desert island than Jimmy Carter? Try "W"...
At least Carter is talking to the Palestinians, which is way more than the Bush administration has done since they were in office.
Oh I forgot, they only talk to democratically elected govt's that they happen to like or agree with.
I see him as one of few public figures that have the courage to realistically act on, or attempt to assist in an unacceptible situation.
The voices get louder and more insulting. A sign of something other than logic and sensibility. This is paralleled with the meter of insecurity per individual/group and the growing brutality of the situation.
I was surprised to read such a negative assessment of Carter. While his administration was no big success, since then he's become one of the most liked and respected Americans outside the U.S. because of his work for human rights and fair elections. Is his reputation really so different inside the U.S.?
If I had to be stuck on a desert island with a former U.S. president, Carter wouldn't be my first choice, but he'd be in my top five.
"Is there any living ex-president you'd less want to be trapped with on a desert island than Jimmy Carter?"
Well, if you're a trashy woman, Clinton would spend the entire time trying to grope you and if you're a respected woman W would try to "massage" you, so that leaves out both of them for about half the population. The worse that Carter would do would be trying to get you to read his new book handwritten on empty coconut shells about his brother, which you could only pretend to do until he got eaten by the local cannibals when he went over to greet them. The elder Bush, meanwhile, would spend the entire time trying to pretend he isn't W's dad.
This reeks of inside-the-beltway Washington insider conventional wisdom, whereas the average citizen like me probably has a pretty favorable impression of the former president's activities since leaving office(and yes, I'm old enough to remember his shortcomings as a president). But unfortunately it seems many Washington insiders like this reporter envy someone like Carter who isn't stuck in the prison of political pandering, who has the courage to stick his neck out(right or wrong) for what he actually believes in. Reporters are much more comfortable with people who behave like they do; they'd rather all politicians to be shallow and predictable; they'd be happier if Carter just did a few speaking engagements for $50,000 a pop at business conventions and left it at that.
I applaud President Carter's continued efforts to work for peace in the Middle East. Especially after listening to our current President who, yesterday, said that
He would make the creation of a Palestinian state a priority during the remaining time of his administration. (Oh boy - sandwiched in somewhere between sending out rebate checks and clearing the files for the next occupant) and...
He offered assurances that this state would not be a "Swiss Cheese country". Yeah, yeah I know what he was referring to, but the analogy extends to Israel being a "pastrami on rye type of country."
All righty then.
It reminds me of the Henry Kissinger routine on Prairie Home Companion following Bush's first inauguration:
Kissinger: "I've been teaching the President about the middle east"
Garrison Keiller: "Oh really..what have you been teaching him?"
Kissinger: (pause) Vhere it is.
I'll tell you - as an American Jew I'm glad that someone with a brain is actively working for peace in the middle east. I trust, and believe in, Jimmy Carter
I agree with the previous posters. Question his methods all you want, but his motives are far more lofty than any other ex-president. As for the desert island jab (couldn't come up with anything more substantive?), Carter would at least provide interesting conversation. One could only hope that peanuts grow in the tropics.
Yes, Jimmy Carter IS losing his credibility. He's gotta stop. I am so sick of his holier than thou crap. He may not agree with the current administration about its diplomacy or foreign policy -- neither do I -- but unless he has been dispatched to be a representative of this country, he has no business trying to enact his own foreign policy with its enemies. I'm sorry, but I consider that treasonous. And from a purely practical perspective, what possible purpose can it serve that is constructive? Who's gonna listen to him now? He's just made himself into a political pariah and negated all the good things he has done post-presidency. Good grief.
At least if I were stranded on an island with Jimmy Carter he'd know how to build me a house!
Frankly, it was only a matter of time before people started stepping in to do the job of this useless Bush administration. Those of us in the private sector know what its like to sit by and watch horrible management ruin a good company and burn bridges with customers and vendors alike. Sure you can sit back and say "It's not my job." And you can waste your breath trying to convince the powers that be to step up and do the right thing. Or you can risk a tongue-lashing and stick your neck out.
I'm glad Carter is stirring the pot.
Talking is always better in International Relations than fighting is. As an ex-President, Carter represents a segment of the population that wants some sanity brought back to our foreign policy.
Enemy bad, Nationalism good. Yea!...Man, talk about embracing our roots :-(
Surely you're joking Mr. Gibney!
Jimmy Carter has his heart and his head in the right place.
If you were on the same island as our VP Dick Cheney he would have sot you by now!
Who is Mr. Gibney, and on what experience or knowledge does he pass judgment on Mr. Carter.
If we are to ever see peace in the Middle East the U.S. is going to have to start acting independently of Israel and in our own interests; not as put forward by vociferous and aggressive interest groups. For nearly 50 years now our foreign policy has suffered far too much from Cubans in Florida and Jews and others throughout the nation.
The hue and cry over "Peace; Not Apartheid" is an excellent example. Generalized accusations were made against Mr. Carter but apart from one or two minor factual errors his opponents failed to come up with anything of substance.
It's a dirty job but someone should try to do it. God knows GW ain't trying and Clinton, Obama, and McCain sure aren't talking about any new approaches that might bring results such as 1) Immmediate or short-term recognition of a Palestinian state; 2) Suspending further financial aid to Israel and in the future providing equal amounts to each country; 3) No right of return and the settlements have to go (and without destruction as happened in Gaza); 4)a large scale UN force to provide border security going both ways; and 5) sepatate international mediation and arbitration panels to resolve all the various issues that are bound to come up, first by agreement but soon thereafter by binding arbitration. We don't need anymore 40 year negotiations.
Dramatic, yes. Expensive, yes, but still a lot cheaper than what we are paying now, mostly indirectly, to let this sore continue to run.
Au contraire, Gibney, Carter's stature has been increased by his brave and sensible efforts. Let's remember that he was the one who successfully brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. He's earned his right to speak and work on this issue.
He's being attacked by the same Israel-uber-alles types who helped ease us into this nutty Iraq war. It's about time the rest of us spoke up against the Israel lobby - which should be no more immune to criticism than the NRA or AARP.
Ironically, the lobby's efforts will ultimately result in the destruction of Israel by immunizing that nation from constructive criticism and good sense - - - encouraging its increasingly self-destructive thrashings.
I wouldn't mind being on an island with Carter at all. He's read widely, he's got a nice sly sense of humor, he has integrity, and he probably has survivor skills few others possess.
I don't expect to see cheap, glib insults under the ATLANTIC banner. Your pubication usually does better.
If I thought the Atlantic was going to turn on Carter and support the jewish jihad against him I would drop the Atlantic like a hot rock.
Drop Gibney, clearly he's out of it.
GO CARTER! YOU GOT THE CAHONES!
These comments have been stitches. By any measure, Jimmy Carter is the worst ex-President in U.S. history. One need look no further for proof than the scorn heaped on him by many leaders in his own Democratic party over the last few years. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have done all they can to distance themselves from Carter after his most-recent effort to legitimize Hamas. With the possible exception of many of the recent posters on this site, there really aren't a lot of supporters of the terrorist organization Hamas in either the Democratic or the Republican parties in the United States. (As an aside, it was nice to see that even Hamas has problems with Carter, given that the called him a liar after their meeting for suggesting that Hamas didn't really want to anhiliate Israel).
From his recent visit with Hamas to his prior endorsements of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il, Jimmy Carter has seldom met a tyrant or dictator that he couldn't support in opposition to some U.S. policy or position. One can only conclude that Carter is either a confused dupe of tyrants from around the world or an intentional and knowing supporter of organizations and countries that wish to do all Americans harm. Either way, he has done real damage to the United States since he left office over 25 years ago. And that is a very sad legacy for a man who, by many accounts, was supposed to be very intelligent.
I was surprised to hear when Mr Carter declared his visit to Palestine a momentous success and then sighed to hear Hamas' swift repudiation of any recognition of Israel or any lessening of it's commitment to Israel's destruction.
I think that on our fictional island, Mr Carter's house building skills would be far more welcome that Bush's brush clearing ones, but I also think that he came off as a little naive in his handling of Hamas.
What has happened to the Atlantic? Where's this gasbag Gibney from? The Atlantic seems to have been invaded by plague of rightwing animated odors and ranting rectal openings in suits and ties.
Carter's got lots of faults but for an American and an American politician he has been amazingly clear-headed about the realities on the ground in Israel and Palestine. Right now closing down the U.S. State Department, sending all its employees home, and turning off the lights would be an improvement over existing U.S. diplomatic efforts.
The Atlantic, however, has become spam. It's right up there with penis extensions and the fastrack path to a millionaire by opening envelopes.
Credibility?
Gibney has none in my book.
The only thing I understood from his short blast at Carter is that he does not understand Carter's integrity in working for peace, nor does he understand the idea of communicating with all parties in a conflict.
I have my issues with Carter, but applaud his global work towards non-violent conflict resolution.
I'd agree with the desert island assessment, except:
- W. would be even more useless than Gilligan, and far less funny.
- Bush 1 would try to find the luxury resort.
- Bill Clinton would try to have sex with you, as noted above.
- Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney--not ex-presidents, but close enough--would cheerfully kill you with a coconut while you slept and eat you for protein.
- Carter, at least, could build you a serviceable little house after all that Habitat for Humanity work! Maybe even a boat!
Recently my daughter-in-law sent me a cell phone photograph of Jimmy Carter boarding her AirTran flight to Atlanta. I was horrified. Mr. Gibney's desert island is a metaphor for just exactly what I imagined, being trapped sitting next to Jimmy Carter on a two and a half hour flight. I thought about what I would say to him. I would have to say, just to get it off my chest, "You were the worst President of my lifetime, and I disagree with just about everything you say and do now." Then, in an effort to induce some measure of airborne conviviality, I would have to say something else, probably something like, "but I hope your peanuts are doing well."
And just what is Gibney's agenda? Has he cashed an AIPAC check recently? Whatever Carter's shortcomings as president,they pale before the incompetence, thuggery, secrecy and criminal behavior of the Bush/Cheney regime. We are in fact stuck on what is becoming a desert island with the current reign of plutocrats and power pimps.
Good Old Jimmy I say! The ex President could be enjoying a well earned retirement yet continues to look for peace in the World.
Mr. Carter is doing a job which the State Department would normally be doing, if it wasn’t in the grip of the Neocons.
Let us pray that Mr Gibney doesn't become President of the United States, thereby depriving such excellent candidates as Bush pere et fils, for example, of a chance to win the brass ring at the ex-president-one-would-least-wish-to-be-trapped-with-on-a-desert-island contest. Not to speak of McCain/Clinton, who no doubt will perform humanity the service (to the applause, I am sure of Mr Gibney and his ilk) of attacking Iran, in the event Bush/Cheney don't manage to do so in time....
Henri
The law may be impractical, but it still serves a purpose. Any group, including Hamas, that meets with Carter, or anyone not sent with the authority of the current U.S. government, risks being played for a patsy.
Whatever Hamas leaders, or any other leaders, said to Carter, since he does not have much real authority, and since those leaders know that he does not have much real authority, it becomes too easy for those leaders to make statements that Carter will relay to the press.
But those statements don't have the weight, and thus the credibility, that they would if they were made to an official of the current government. If the Bush administration had publicly asked Carter to go as an envoy, or if he were just seeking a dialogue and a rapprochment, then his meetings and the statements from them would be much more valuable.
It's good that he's trying -- someone sure has to -- but a government cannot effectively act when it sends confusing and mixed signals, or one side thinks it has support that it does not. Recall the confusion by the Kurds of U.S. support following the first Gulf War, or the confusion of Hussein on the U.S. response to an invasion of Kuwait. And those were mixed signals sent by officials!
"Is there any living ex-president you'd less want to be trapped with on a desert island than Jimmy Carter?" asks Mr. Gibney, and the obvious and unambiguous answer is, Yes, all the others. (Just for a moment, imagine the conversations with Poppy, Bill, or W over how much coconut should have been left left in the bucket from last night). And since Mr. Carter has been right about everything he disagree with Mr. Gibney about, the ex-president's reputation is in no danger, though the author's is.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
Jimmy Carter is losing his credibility says James Gibney. Nonsense. Perhaps he meant George W Bush. Or maybe it is the credibility of James Gibney at stake.
Posted by Mattie Tolley | April 24, 2008 9:58 PM