Patterico's Pontifications

12/6/2006

Democrats Secretly Met with Hamas?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:32 pm



UPI is reporting:

Hamas officials have smuggled more than $66 million into Gaza and have met with U.S. Democrats at a secret location, it was reported Wednesday.

Yes, you read that right. The article continues:

Meanwhile, the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency reported Hamas representatives recently had secret talks with U.S. Democratic Party officials in anticipation of the party regaining congressional power in Washington.

The Palestinian news agency also said Hamas had secret talks with European government officials, including with Britain and France.

A story in the Jerusalem Post had reported something similar — but then the relevant paragraphs disappeared. Tom Blumer has the details. A similar report showed up here. (H/t NoisyRoom.net.) And then I ran across the UPI story.

Captain Ed is skeptical. He says the Democrats would have to be idiots to meet with Hamas. I say, maybe the Democrats are idiots.

In any event, a decent press would be very, very interested in tracking down the truth of this allegation.

Somehow, I doubt that will happen. But I’d love to be proved wrong.

49 Responses to “Democrats Secretly Met with Hamas?”

  1. As I noted here, there’s one ’08 wannabe I’m not at all certain is smarter than that. It wouldn’t be the dumbest thing he’s ever done.

    Bill Faith (3cc7e8)

  2. The democraticaly elected leaders of America may have met with the democraticaly elected leaders of Palestine?

    Oh, my!

    In secret, no less.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  3. Sorry Neville, but this is an executive type action. Read the constitution, any execution of government, any government action, is vested in the president. Legislature makes laws, advises and consents and gives laws to the president but the president is the actor.

    And the democratically elected president is not a democrat.

    Hamas is a terrorist organization no matter what they’ve been “elected” to.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  4. I’m skeptical. They can’t name the Dems involved. Without names it is more of a smear than a real news report.

    Which Dems took time out of campaiging to fly to Europe on false pretenses and attend these secret meetings?

    This is the 2006 version of the fantasy story that George HW Bush secretly flew an SR-71 to meet with the Iranians to fix he and Reagan’s “October Surprise” against Carter. Yeah – right.

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  5. I hate to double post, but this blog attracts trolls and I wanted to add that anyone who wants to argue that I’m wrong and the democrats are justified in secretly meeting with Hamas needs to explain why the Logan Act doesn’t apply.

    Here’s the law:
    “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

    The President sets foreign policy, he or his subordinate is the United States’s only valid representative, and any attempt by the democrats to meet with Hamas would have to be an attempt to influence what’s going on there.

    but much worse is that Hamas is, according to the State Department, a Foreign Terrorist Organization. When does shame kick in? So you disagree with Bush or the Iraq war or whatever. When do you say enough? When dems make backroom deals with bloodthirsty terrorists? When we find proof that Iran is killing our troops with brand new iranian weapons? When do we find some common ground?

    The dems definitaly won an election that was all about Bush, but is this what they’re going to do with their power?

    Dustin (ea244e)

  6. Lib Avenger, it’s pretty reasonable to assume this is a BS story. I hope it is.

    But anyone saying this sort of thing wouldn’t be a felony or morally outrageous is wrong.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  7. Some people seem to believe talk is dangerous but wars are just fine.

    It’s just a chat, Justin.

    People who get upset about us talking to Iran or Hamas run the risk of looking like paranoid fanatics.

    Are you worried people will discover Muslims are humans too?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  8. Neville Chamberlain, you choose to spend your free time on blogs being a provacateur commenting under a historical name which you believe is ‘ironic,’ or ‘clever,’ and that’s totally cool, bro.

    But outside of being provocative, it sounds like you truly misunderstand the point that Dustin is making;
    The President is elected to meet/negotiate with foreign heads of state, & execute foreign policy—and unless authorized by the Administration, it simply does not fall under the jurisdiction of members of Congress, nor private citizens.

    I realize you don’t want facts to get in the way of playing the race card, and so you feel that any objection by Patterico or Dustin to Democrats circumventing their Constitutional limitations warrants a charge of “racism !” or “religious bigotry !”

    The story about Democrats meeting with Hamas has yet to be confirmed, but even if Democrats secretly met with white Christians representing Ireland or say, Belgium, it still violates the Constitution.
    And even if a group of well-intending REPUBLICANS got together and secretly met with heads of state of a foreign government—unless such action was authorized by the President—it, too, would violate the Constitution.

    We’re a nation governed by laws—not emotions.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  9. It’s funny how you guys bring up the law only when it suits you.

    Dustin seems to be implying that to talk with someone automatically means you are trying to influence them.

    Certainly a curious worldview.

    Congress is the branch of government that allocates the money our government spends….they have every right to gather facts from any source they choose.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  10. Sad part is, it’s believable.

    Gerald (458d5b)

  11. The worst part? Who to believe? Hamas lies constantly, the press lies when they feel like it and politicians just lie.

    The question is, why would the Dems want to talk to Hamas? Any results of talks with Hamas are all downside.
    I see two likely possibilities if the report is true.
    Whichever Dem talked to them thinks he/she can get Hamas to agree to “Peace in our Time” and that’s pretty darn stupid but we’ve seen stupider I guess.
    Or…
    What if the “Democrats” in question were somebody like Jesse Jackson? Hamas would say, “Hey, he ran for President as a Dem so…”

    Veeshir (5f9b87)

  12. Maybe they promised to sell them missles.

    actus (10527e)

  13. It’s funny how you guys bring up the law only when it suits you.

    Yeah, Dems think the law doesn’t apply to them.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  14. As James Baker says, we have to speak with our enemies, not just our friends. So, how can this be a ‘smear’? Does anyone know the whereabouts of one french-looking Senator, John F. Kerry, who does have a record of secretly meeting with America’s enemies during time of war. So, the suggestion that Dem’s have met with Hamas is not so outre.

    Jabba the Tutt (1ad70e)

  15. I think that was Moshe Dyan who said that, Jabba.

    Or did Moshe say:

    “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

    That’s it.

    Remember when Israel was run by heroes?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  16. Dustin –

    On your law citation, is there a statute of limitations on that part? Also, how old is that particular piece/

    In particular, if someone violated that law in 1971, could they still be prosecuted?

    jim (6482d8)

  17. Neville is all OVER the place today trying to defend this (Not unbelievable but not substantiated) story with every possible extralegal and race-card defense under the sun, whether or not they are logically consistent with law, facts, et al.

    BECAUSE IF WE ONLY TALKED TO THEM!

    OHNOES (5884ae)

  18. I’m not sure if the situation is the same, but what about when Bill Richardson negotiated the release of a US journalist with the government of Sudan?

    Is that a violation of the Logan Act (I’m not sure if he went under presidential authority or not)?

    Overall, this situation seems too fuzzy to declare a violation of the law. Even if the story is true (which I kinda doubt), we have unknown Democrats meeting with members of Hamas (which the US essentially refuses to recognize as a foreign government), at an unknown location to talk about unknown things.

    Not too concrete.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  19. Wasn’t there something similiar with Teddy Kennedy or was that bushwa also?

    paul from fl (001f65)

  20. Re: The Logan Act–(caveat: this story smells like teen spirit)

    Any number of reasons why it wouldn’t apply–Hamas isn’t a government (just like Howard Dean and Ken Mehlman aren’t members of a government), the US doesn’t have dealings with Hamas, the Palestinian Authority may or may not qualify as a ‘foreign government,’ and you’d need to prove the intent to influence policy and relations, as opposed to mere dialogue.

    That said, again, this smells bogus and highly unprobable–especially since Cynthia McKinney is now out of a job.

    Geek, Esq. (7fb9f3)

  21. Neville said: Dustin seems to be implying that to talk with someone automatically means you are trying to influence them.

    Yep, I do believe that holding secret meetings with what you yourself asserted to be “the democraticaly elected leaders of Palestine” would be some sort of foreign policy action. Plus they are terrorists (as far as our laws are concerned).

    It would take some serious twisting of the scenario to find they weren’t violating the Logan Act… if the sotry is true, which I’m starting to doubt.

    If they were just talking about sports though, I agree that this wouldn’t be illegal.

    To the other commenter: the normal statute of limitations would apply.

    Leviticus: The law isn’t fuzzy at all. Obviously Bill Richardson cannot negotiate with the Sudanese government unless he is asked by the executive branch. This stuff isn’t complicated! The power of the executive is totally vested in the president.

    Bill Richardson knew the law because it’s not an obscure point at all. Here’s an interview he gave to Newshour (easily googled, but at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/december96/richardson_12-11.html)

    “MARGARET WARNER: How did you get involved in this latest situation?

    Richardson REP. BILL RICHARDSON: About 10 days ago, the wife of the American who was a constituent of mine from New Mexico, the International Red Cross, the government of Sudan asked me to get involved. I never get involved in these rescue efforts unless the State Department gives me a green light. And it all came together because for some 30 days the Red Cross had been trying to negotiate a release and had failed with this Commander Karbimo, a rebel leader in the southern part of Sudan, who although allied with the government of Sudan, is a dissident within that faction. It’s just very complicated. ”

    There isn’t a grey area here. You deal with a foreign government, you better be authorized to act in the executive branch.

    I’m kinda surprised this isn’t more well understood.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  22. it doesn’t bother me if democrats met with hamas. tempest in a teapot. i remember the pious condemnation when carter’s un ambassador andy young met with the palestinians. at least the democrats aren’t offering arms in exchange for hostages.

    assistant devil's advocate (d30294)

  23. To me it doesn’t seem any worse than Bonior and McDermott flying to Baghdad for a sitdown with Saddam.

    Of course, that was pretty bad…

    spongeworthy (45b30e)

  24. I wonder if Hamas isn’t just playing a game with us.

    I trust the dems more than I trust Hamas, and the DNC denies these meetings happened.

    Remember, just as soon as there is peace between Israel and a Palestinian State, a hell of a lot of terrorists will lose their power. Hamas wants as much violence and as little progress as possible. I disagree with the Dems, but they do want some sort of progress. Hamas is probably just trying to keep the United States divided. Bush v Gore and the Clinton impeachment, both transparently partisan power grabs, have caused us more problems in the war on terror than any Sunni or Shiite could hope to create.

    I wish we could be one nation regarding the war effort. Places like Iraq Iran and Syria have to be invaded for us to win. It’s obvious. We can argue about health care or even tactics, but the deep partisanship regarding fighting those governments is pointless. It’s going to happen one way or another. Does anyone rally think Iran will use Nuclear weapons for deterrence? Of course not, we have to fight them.

    Hamas (basically Iran’s puppet) knows this. And they want the GOP screaming at the DNC just as much as they want vice versa.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  25. It’s so amusing that there are people out there who truly believe that their personal emotions trump the jurisdictions prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

    Rather, what is of concern is, is it a violation of the Constitution for persons unauthorized by the Administration to negotiate with heads of foreign states ?
    The answer is, “Yes.”

    It’s funny, because I could swear I’ve seen old-man assistant devil’s advocate argue on behalf of the Constitution in numerous prior threads.
    Maybe he mistakes the Constitution for a cafeteria.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  26. Dustin wrote:

    I wonder if Hamas isn’t just playing a game with us.

    I trust the dems more than I trust Hamas, and the DNC denies these meetings happened.

    Don’t know about that; if there is one thing that Hamas is, it’s honest. They don’t mince words, and are quite up front about what they want, the destruction of Israel. And any organization that can get scores of different people to commit suicide just to attack their enemies is clearly dedicated!

    On the other hand, we have American politicians; anyone here wish to claim that they never lie?

    That being said, there needs to be more proof on a story like this. Unlike LA, I can see where the Democrats could find the time to do it (most weren’t involved in close campaigns), but, like our esteemed host, I have a difficult time believing that our Democratic friends are that dumb!

    Dana (3e4784)

  27. I disagree Dana. Of all the characteristics of the Islamofacists, the most consistent is their intent to lie to the press to create political problems in the United States. It doesn’t really have to be Hamas, but just some guy with access to the press.

    I realize I’m being more speculative than you. Obviously the democrats were able to do this and able to lie about things. But if the dems really did have secret meetings with terrorists, it would be much smarter to just lie about what happened at the meeting than to assert none took place? One’s a hell of a lot easier to disprove than the other.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  28. […] Not content to simply confer secretly with Hamas, today we have this. [Portuguese Socialist Prime Minister Jose] Socrates said [Howard] Dean’s Democrats “should know that they can count on European Socialists” for support. […]

    TailOverTeaKettle.com » “European Socialists eager to work with U.S. Democrats” (acab5c)

  29. IF the Dems (or senior members of the Party) DID meet with Hamas, they should be tried for treason or sedition or just being assholes, whatever will stick.

    IF the Dems did not, then THEY should demand an apology from the murdering thugs of Hamas forthwith.

    I would tend to believe anything of the Dems (remember John “Futile” Kerry meeting with the No. Vietnamese while he was still on active duty – talk about your big “no no”), somehow I doubt that even in the throes of BDS they would be THAT stupid.

    Gayle Miller (1288b1)

  30. Do you think America is currently at war with Palestine, Gayle?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  31. Neville, we are at war with the government of Palestine, sort of. The War on Terror. You won’t find a reputable list of terrorist groups without Hamas written on it.

    This may sound disingenuous, but it isn’t. Hamas=Iran. Iran and the United States are pretty much at a state of war right now in Iraq. There’s this cliche that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, but that’s obviously not the case today (regardless of who you want to blame, flypaper strategy or not)

    Dustin (ea244e)

  32. Neville, you like asking everyone questions, why don’t you answer one? What is the minimum sort of secret meeting scenario that would constitute a crime to you?

    Do you think it it is possible to violate the Logan Act? It’s a very broad statute. Explain to me the minimum sort of meeting that would violate it in your view.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  33. Sir Neville Chamberlain asked:

    Do you think America is currently at war with Palestine, Gayle?

    I’m not Gayle, but I’d say that the answer is yes.

    Or, perhaps more precisely, the Palestinian leadership (there is no nation Palestine) is at war with us; far too many Americans are simply unwilling to recognize that. Maybe we’re really at peace with someone who is at war with us.

    Dana (9f37aa)

  34. That’s a tough question, Dustin.

    How could someone claim to be negotiating on behalf of the United States who wasn’t authorized to do so and get away with it these days?

    It’s not like we’re living in 1799 any more.

    A quick check on the internets could show they were not.

    I don’t see a problem with someone receiving an offer from a foreign government and passing it along to the State Dept.

    I also don’t see a problem with someone advising a foreign government about what they think it would take to reach a diplomatic deal with America.

    It seems to me Hamas is sophisticated enough to know the Democrats would need the support of the Republicans to do anything concrete.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  35. Neville, answer the question! Don’t be so intellectually dishonest!

    What would violate the law? Can you tell me what the low line on violating it is? You can’t because you know that the democrats (if the story was true) Must Have Committed A Felony.

    I’m not sure what the relevance of the year 1799. The Logan Act passed congress in 1994 (revised from the 1799 law). Any law that can pass the same congress twice, but two hundred years apart is quite obviously an important, established law.

    I don’t care waht you see a problem with. Every single congressman swears to uphold our laws and our constitution. Either you accept that this activity was illegal, or the president can spy on your phonecalls, invade without anyone’s consent, and segregate schools, because after all only laws and the constitution get in the way of those actions.

    You don’t get to pick and choose enforcment based on your wildly speculative interpretations of waht happened. And your refusal to explain what is a violation of the Logan Act serves as an acknowledgment that you know the law was broken.

    Dustin (ea244e)

  36. Rather, what is of concern is, is it a violation of the Constitution for persons unauthorized by the Administration to negotiate with heads of foreign states ?
    The answer is, “Yes.”

    Dont’ we have first amendment rights to talk to other people?

    actus (bb04e2)

  37. Well, Dustin…

    I suppose if a Democratic member of Congress had Hamas set up some front company, then they earmarked some funds to go to that company…that would be illegal.

    But otherwise…what’s the problem?

    Representatives of foreign governments talk to Congressmen all the time.

    The U.N. is based here in America.

    Do you want to arrest anyone who talks to its foreign representatives while they’re here?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  38. Actually, actus may be right. If the Democrats hypothetically met with Hamas, not as elected officials representing a government but as individuals seeking the free exchange of ideas, they may be legally clear. Seeing as the meeting was (hypothetically) secret, I can’t see how they were acting in any official manner.

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  39. So I wonder what would happen if “Republicans held secret talks with the Taliban.”

    G (722480)

  40. Anyway, I seriously don’t believe that the Democrats would do this. But no, as elected officials of government you don’t get an “on/off” switch of when you get to be a government official or a private citizen.

    G (722480)

  41. I don’t know if Democratic Members of Congress met with representatives of Hamas or not. I wouldn’t put it past them, but I also have a difficult time seeing them being that stupid.

    But if they ever do plan on such, they had better do so in public, and be completely above board with it, because that’s a secret that can’t be kept forever, and it’ll be majorly damaging to them when such came out.

    Dana (3e4784)

  42. Hmmm – Saw this on another blog – Could Howard Dean be the Senior Democrat alluded to?

    http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-12-07T204342Z_01_L0796336_RTRUKOC_0_US-EUROPE-SOCIALISTS-US.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

    Enlightened (af3db1)

  43. […] Posted by Kathy Filed in: Blogging by Kathy at 11:14 on Dec 9th, 2006 | | Trackback URL | Print This Post | No Comments» […]

    Hang Right Politics - Archives » Some Great Weekend Reading (ab26d8)

  44. But no, as elected officials of government you don’t get an “on/off” switch of when you get to be a government official or a private citizen.

    Sure you do. When you pray as a private citizen you’re praying for yourself. If you pray as a public official, you’re establishing religion.

    actus (bb04e2)

  45. HAVE TARITORS SHOT AT DAWN

    krazy kagu (6cb3c5)

  46. “Sure you do. When you pray as a private citizen you’re praying for yourself. If you pray as a public official, you’re establishing religion.” -Actus

    You do not get a pass to meet with a terrorist organization/enemy of the government you represent/foreign government.

    G (722480)

  47. All I can think of is that the patriot colonists who fought King George to acheive our American independence represented about one-third of America’s population. The majority either didn’t care or actively worked against those patriots.

    The only thing that seems to have changed between then and now is that we no longer hang traitors. America’s sick, lame, and lazy will never change…

    Clark Baker (6b1ecb)

  48. did I really miss anything?…

    Pelosi became yet another Democrat to violate the Logan Act, one of the least remembered and most abused laws on the books.  Iran released the British hostages, calling it a "gift" to the Britons, while the news of what the……

    walls of the city (540728)

  49. ?p=89…

    ?p=89…

    ?p=89 (0ce906)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0948 secs.