Bloodless Or Carter Bound?

The 1922 portrait of Dr. Stadelmann [mustache removed] by the famous Otto Dix, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, W.Landmann Collection

 

A group of 52 former American hostages released by Iran 25 years ago, confronted two of Condoleezza Rice's most senior aides, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and legal adviser John B. Bellinger III.

Their grievance: Why has the Bush administration, which has labeled Iran one of the world's most dangerous regimes and has called the hostages American heroes, fought their efforts to win damages for their ordeal from the Islamic republic?

The answer is deeply rooted in diplomatic obligations as set out in the Algiers Accords Agreement, which codified the January 1981 deal between the United States and Iran under which the hostages were released, approx. 8 billion dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen, and an arbitration tribunal was established in the Netherlands to settle claims between the two countries. In the first part of the document, the United States pledged that it "will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Elsewhere, the United States pledged to "bar and preclude" any claims filed by the hostages against Iran.

Under the Agreement, the United States is obligated "to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration...."

Here is the crucial Document, part of the United States-Iran Agreement on Release of the American Hostages Executive Order 12283, January 19th 1981 : Non-Prosecution Of Claims Of Hostages And For Actions At The United States Embassy And Elsewhere

The other parts of the Agreement, largely relevant to the release of all Iranian assets, including the property of the former Shah of Iran, and the revocation of trade sanctions against Iran, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Agreement of course has President Jimmy Carter's fingerprints all over it. President Reagan was inaugurated the day the hostages were released, and lumbered with the Algiers Accords agreement already signed on that very day. The hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration speech was delivered.

God forbid that in today's two page article, the Washington Post would make mention of the fact that the agreement was negotiated and signed by President Jimmy "Cowardly Appeasement Policy" Carter, on January 20th 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, as his last glorious act as President of the U.S. and just before he handed the sullied reigns over to Ronald Reagan.

Carter's announcement on the morning of January 20th 1981: "I know you have been up all night with me and I appreciate it very much. We have now reached an agreement with Iran which will result, I believe, in the freedom of our American hostages. The last documents have now been signed in Algiers following the signing of the documents in Iran which will result in this agreement."

Jimmy Carter's last full day as President of the United States was a marathon struggle against the clock and the seeming determination of the Iranian authorities to deny him a reunion with the American hostages as a climax to his Presidency. Throughout a night and day of sustained tension, Carter and his aides clung to the hope that he would be able to greet the hostages on their arrival in West Germany, then return here in time to attend Ronald Reagan's inauguration.

The prospect of ending the crisis and making the trans-Atlantic dash in the closing hours of the Carter Presidency had enthused his staff like nothing else since his defeat on November 4th 1980. But it was not to be. Shortly after Pars, the Iranian press agency, gloated publicly that Carter would not be able to welcome the hostages as President because their release would be delayed until after his term expired - a claim that remained to be proved - Carter bowed to the inevitable and accepted Reagan's request that he serve as a special envoy to greet the hostages.

In the closing moments of his pitiful presidency Jimmy Carter would have been prepared to sign anything Iran had to offer, simply to have the glory of the release of the 52 hostages, and the end to the Iran crisis, attributed to him, as a sealed climax to his presidency. His dearest wish above all else to have a triumphant end to his presidency, but at what expense. This is the agreement that the State Department is dumped with today, but of course the ever biased MSM would never mention that.

The answer is rooted in diplomatic obligations and a wariness about favoring one set of terrorism victims over others. U.S. officials express sympathy for the former hostages. But the administration has thwarted every effort in the courts or in Congress to win a monetary judgment against Iran, even as other victims of Iranian-linked terrorism have secured hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation
[...]
But last week the State Department objected when Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) tried to address the issue in a House bill that would maintain sanctions against Iran for its links to terrorism, forcing the lawmaker to withdraw his proposal.

"We have 52 of our finest Americans who were held hostage," Sherman said. "They go to court, and you know who appears against them? The State Department."

The former hostages have long tried to sue Iran over being blindfolded, tortured and held in dank cells during 444 days in captivity. Earlier lawsuits were dismissed because other countries generally cannot be sued in federal court. But in 1996 Congress amended the foreign sovereign immunity law to allow suits against countries listed as state sponsors of terrorism. The former hostages sued under the new law, seeking $33 billion in compensatory and punitive damages, and won a default judgment against Iran in 2001.

But on the eve of a hearing to consider damages, the Bush administration intervened, saying the suit violated an agreement with Iran that had secured the hostages' release. The judge threw out the suit in 2002 after Congress twice tried to intervene by passing legislation favoring the hostages. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2004. Now the former hostages are seeking relief from Congress.[...]

Beyond the plight of these hostages, the case raises difficult issues.

Even if a victim of terrorism wins at trial, it is almost impossible to collect damages. Iran's assets in the United States, for instance, are worth only about $20 million, mainly diplomatic property, according to State Department officials. So Congress in 2000 passed legislation authorizing the payment of $380 million in U.S. Treasury funds to claimants in cases involving 14 victims who were held hostage or killed by Iranian-supported groups such as Hezbollah, according to the Congressional Research Service. Lawmakers ordered the State Department to try to get that money reimbursed by Iran someday.

Other victims of terrorism, however, have received nothing, leading some lawmakers to conclude that it is inequitable -- and costly to U.S. taxpayers -- to carve out exceptions on a piecemeal basis.[...]

For the hostages, the situation is rich in irony. The State Department, in legal arguments and on Capitol Hill, has maintained that allowing the hostages' case to go forward will violate the Algiers Accords. But Rice has announced a $75 million plan to bolster democracy in Iran and to foster opposition to the theocracy that controls the country. The hostages say Rice's program violates the prohibition on interfering in Iran's affairs; Iran has also filed a complaint with the United States through the Swiss Embassy, which handles U.S. interests in Tehran.[...]

U.S. officials say that supporting democracy does not amount to interference under international law. And they say abrogating the Algiers Accords, though not a formal treaty, would be viewed overseas as a serious breach of international norms, harming U.S. interests. U.S. banks and companies have been able to settle claims with Iran because of the accords, while the United States has been forced to pay about $900 million to Iran for contract violations and property damage.[...]

The Administration's proposed a plan in 2003, that would have given any victim of terrorism $262,000. This was rejected by the Senate, and the idea languished, largely because of complaints that the amount was too low. We are of course not told why the Democratic Senators did not propose an alternative, simply that this is now a newly found battle with the State Department. Ahem.

Obviously the Administration now has to put a plan in place to reflect the present relationship with Iran and other countries, amounting to a "comprehensive program" for victims of international terrorism, including the former hostages, therefore dealing with the appallingly one sided and inadequate Algiers Accords agreement inherited form the incompetent Jimmy Carter.

(Linked to Carnivals @  Basil's Blog, The Mudville Gazette The Real Ugly American, Stop The ACLU Third World County, Right Wing Nation)

Comments

[Washington]

Ghost:

I admire your ability to paint Mr. Carter as ahead of his time. That would be difficult for most people but you do so with gusto. Despite the effort there is nothing to support your claims. Historians rightly judge Mr. Carter a failure. Indeed, most see his presidency as the weakest since 1932. Further, the American people rejected him, his own party abandoned him, and the only people who have embraced him also embraced Arafat.

We will have to disagree on Mr. Carter.

[Ghost Dansing]

Jimmy Carter was blamed for problems, such as runaway inflation and third-world foreign policy backfires that were mostly beyond his control. Nevertheless, his administration had some successes, including the landmark peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that would never have been reached without Carter's own dogged determination to make it happen.

Domestically, Carter had difficulties controlling inflation, which rose in each year of his administration—in part because of oil price increases after the Iranian revolution. The Federal Reserve Board's drastic remedies for curtailing inflation led to interest rates of more than 20% by 1980. Inflation and the unresolved hostage crisis put Carter in a weak position as the 1980 presidential election campaign began.

All in all, Jimmy Carter's Presidency was metaphorically equal to handing the yoke of an aircraft to a pilot after it was already in an unretrievable nosedive. America was in for a big crash, and there wasn't a snowflakes chance in hell that it wasn't going to happen, no matter who was in the White House.

He took the yoke, he did his best, and he is a far superior man to the one currently in office by the Republican Party...superior intellect, superior achievments...

And at least one of the items destined for necessary correction identified during his administration, to which Dubya currently agrees, was the issue of foreign fossil fuel dependency. The only problem is that Carter identified it in the late 1970's...it's 2006.

I guess he was ahead of his time.

[Washington]

Ghost - Could you cite for me the accomplishments of Mr. Carter? Please start with economics, then defense, and go on as much as you like.

[Washington]

Ghost:

There is no way that any sane person could hope to get past your statement that Jimmy Carter faced anything like Lincoln. The rest of your arguement is moot because you jumped the tracks. I have read apologists for Carter, heard them speak...never have any compared Carter to Lincoln.

I will grant you this..you gave me a great quote to use in future.

Have you read the memoirs of his cabinet officials? There are two people defending Carter-you, and Mr. Carter.

Really the comparison with Lincoln, the perfect storm...it's all too much Ghost.

[Ghost Dansing]

No President inherited the perfect storm Carter did, with the exception, perhaps of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was wildly unpopular during the early and middle periods of the Civil War as well.

Haiti policy looks like continuity on American policy over decades.

During the Duvalier family dictatorship-Francois "Papa Doc", 1957-71, followed by Jean-Claude "Baby Doc", 1971-86, both anointed President for Life by papa-the United States trained and armed Haiti's counter-insurgency forces, although most American military aid to the country was covertly channeled through Israel, thus sparing Washington embarrassing questions about supporting brutal governments.

After Jean-Claude was forced into exile in February 1986, fleeing to France aboard a US Air Force jet, Washington resumed open assistance.

And while Haiti's wretched rabble were celebrating the end of three decades of Duvalierism, the United States was occupied in preserving it under new names.

Within three weeks of Jean-Claude's departure, the US announced that it was providing Haiti with $26.6 million in economic and military aid, and in April it was reported that "Another $4 million is being sought to provide the Haitian Army with trucks, training and communications gear to allow it to move around the country and maintain order.' Maintaining order in Haiti translates to domestic repression and control; and in the 21 months between Duvalier's abdication and the scheduled elections of November 1987, the successor Haitian governments were responsible for more civilian deaths than Baby Doc had managed in l5 years.
The CIA was meanwhile arranging for the release from prison, and safe exile abroad, of two of its Duvalier-era contacts, both notorious police chiefs, thus saving them from possible death sentences for murder and torture, and acting contrary to the public's passionate wish for retribution against its former tormenters.

The United States is not happy with "chaos" in its client states. It's bad for control, it's bad for business, it's unpredictable who will come out on top, perhaps another Fidel Castro. It was the danger of "massive internal uprisings" that induced the United States to inform Jean-Claude Duvalier that it was time for him to venture a life of struggle on the French Riviera, and a similar chaotic situation that led the US Ambassador to suggest to Avril that it was an apt moment to retire; transportation into exile for the good general was once again courtesy of Uncle Sam.

And so on and so on...there is context to every accusation you make...and it usually points back to our own foreign policy.

[Washington]

Ghost:

You get an A for effort.

All Presidents inherit problems! Thats hardly an excuse for being subpar. His economic policies were a disaster-his foreign policy was embarassing - his one moment was the camp David accords and that was taken care of by his SOState!

Mr. Carter made an agreement with Duvalier (Baby Doc-Not Papa) not to accept refugees even though those refugees were being tortured.

You state that you don't care what the Soviets said about Carter - due to him trimming 5.9 Billion of the defense budget upon entering office, AND MAKING NO demands that the Sov's do the same, the Sovs grew at a rate large than at any time since the five year period from 1944-1949.

Just a year or so ago he reffered to Kim Il Sung as a "man of justice".

Here is the kicker for how he was perceived within his own party-Ted Kennedy said he had little backbone and ran against him in 1980.

Imagine the horror of having Ted Kennedy state that you were a poor President. The horror!!!

[Ghost Dansing]

The point was, Washington, that Carter faced an impossible set of circumstances...and even by simply stating the truth of the situation, and saying things must change, he took all the heat for all that went before.

"His economic policies, military inadequacy, failure to win over even his own party, domestic programs-his coddling of dictators..."

Economic policies? No economic policy could dig us out of the economic hole America was in when he took office...that's nonsense.

Military inadequacy?

Nixon characterized the Paris Peace Agreements of 1973 as "peace with honor," but primarily they allowed the U.S. military to leave Vietnam without resolving the issue of the country's political future. And set the scene for a planned military down-size at a time when it was politically popular.

The Presidential campaigns in 1968 revolved around the issue of the war in Vietnam, much as the 1952 campaign had revolved around the war in Korea. And once again, a conservative Republican won the election on a platform promising peace, while stressing security and savings.

Since Nixon entered the White House with an agenda that included reduced expenditures on the military, ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam would have to be part of that strategy. The plan for making these alterations came to be known as the Nixon Doctrine.

Nixon moved to scale down American armed forces. Existing military formations were downsized and redeployed. Overall force levels in Vietnam were drastically reduced from 542,000 in January 1969 to 45,600 in July 1972. As the Nixon Doctrine implied, the U.S. intended to hand the ground war over to Vietnamese forces. One of the two U.S. ground divisions in South Korea was withdrawn as well. With the troop redeployments and the slashing of the ground forces’ role in Vietnam, the overall size of the Army could be cut almost in half—from its Vietnam-era high of 1,570,000 in 1968, to 811,000 in 1972.

And you can bet the gutting of the demoralized military went far beyond simple troop reductions...equipment and training also suffered and an operation like Desert One, by the time Carter was in office, was a STRETCH full of risks.

Was Carter suppose to simply poop-out a capable military option against Iran when the results of our historical foreign policy in Iran finally went South?

"...failure to win over even his own party" Wow...that's never happened before. And sometimes the truth hurts...especially when the American People had been drug through an 11 year war with bad results, and were facing a bleak economy due to, what was that again?...printing money to pay for the war so we had inflation?

So he took the hit...how unfare...I guess that's the balance for having a preznit who should be impeached for pure incompetence and won't be.

"...coddling dictators..." Yes, his human rights position really pleased a lot of dictators.

Oh yes, Jimmy Carter spent his last minutes in office trying to end the 444-day Iran hostage crisis that many say cost him the presidency. He even took a telephone with him to Ronald Reagan's swearing in and was engaged in last-minute talks as the two drove up to the Capitol.

But it was the newly inaugurated President Reagan who made the announcement that afternoon - that the 52 American hostages had been released from Tehran and were coming home.

The hostage crisis played a major role in the presidential campaign of 1980. President Carter was preoccupied with the situation and perhaps did not pay enough attention to his re-election campaign, opting instead for a Rose Garden strategy.

His opponent, Ronald Reagan, however, had created a network of informants within the government to give him advance warning of any changes in the hostage situation. Some accused him of exploiting the hostage crisis in his campaign.

Iranians originally asked for $24 billion in return for the captives, but eventually lowered their demands.

On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1981, Iran agreed to accept $8 billion in frozen assets and a promise by the United States to lift trade sanctions in exchange for the release of the hostages.

Looks like Iran won that one...in more ways than one.

[Washington]

Ghost,

You have failed to answer the questions about Carter's policies since you trumpet his success. His economic policies, military inadequacy, failure to win over even his own party, domestic programs-his coddling of dictators....

One way that we judge Presidents is by their acceptance or rejection by the American people.

Reagan - 489 Electoral Votes
Carter - 49

Reagan - 50.7% of the Popular Vote
Carter - 41.1% of the Popular Vote

As for Mr. Carter winning a Nobel Peace Prize so did Yassar Arafat. Mr. Carter was perceived to be out of his league and he did nothing to dissuade anyone from that view.

[North by Northwest]

Ghost,

But then, that was just an extension of dealing with dictators who "played ball" with the United States, and orchestrating the occasional coup, as was the case in Iran and Mossedegh.

Precisely. Thank God this Administration has cottoned on the fact that 9/11 was the ultimate wake-up call to the urgent need of revising such fatal foreign policies. Saddam was first in line. So, why are you in disagreement with the Iraq war, if you condemn such well established pre-9/11 foreign policies?

Carter certainly tops it though. He refuses to look at Saddam and his ilk as dictators. He sees the 'good' in them and proceeds to negotiate on good faith. That's worse than Kissinger's real-policies in effect as it grows long-term impunity. Case in point, Saddam and Ahmadinejad.

[Ggkkk]

Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity

This is nuts

[Ghost Dansing]

Certainly the problems of the Carter administration were circumstantial...largely the unfortunate culmination of decades, if not a century of foreign policy that was finally revealed to be inappropriate to a changing world. The America Carter inherited was already and anachronism, reeling under failures in foreign and domestic policies that were no longer sutainable.

His policy was to tell the truth about the circumstances...and that irritated some...however his problems were largely not of his making, which cannot be said for the current Republican administration.

So...to what policy do you object from the Carter administration?

Human Rights as a real issue?

Certainly, you are in good company with the Soviets...and for that matter Henry Kissinger and his school of thought, which was Real Politik, and felt that Human Rights was an obstruction to substantial negotiations regarding nuclear arms.

But then, that was just an extension of dealing with dictators who "played ball" with the United States, and orchestrating the occasional coup, as was the case in Iran and Mossedegh.

So...we've come full circle to my original points.

Carter's presidency happened within the context of extraordinary historical coincidence...really no reflection on the man himself, or his policies...a man who has gone on to add even greater achievements to his long list...including the Nobel.

I doubt if Dubya will be able to do the same.

[Washington]

Ghost,

What is circumstantial? Your fading........

And your last sentence applies to James Earl Carter-defending the indefensible. Bravo!

[Ghost Dansing]

Circumstantial...totally circumstantial. And regarding your comment about "substance", when one dismisses all fact, one can see substance in nothing.

Who the heck cares what the Soviets thought anyway?

But trully, isn't all this tact of discussing an unfortunate Democratic Presidency from three decades past, albeit one filled by a trully great man, simply a distraction from the breathtaking failures of the current Republican administration?

Have we simply given up on the denials and parroted rhetoric once used to stridently defend the indefensible?

[Washington]

Ghost:

Long comment, no substance.

Mr. Carter refused to allow the Olympic team to go because Congress forced his hand.

As to your comment about Carter holding nations to high standards that is simply beyond the bounds of reason! James Carter was out of his league from the start - his own party and cabinet have spoken about his inability to govern. When the Wall came down we saw from the archives of the Soviet Union how they felt about Carter; they believed him to incompetent.

Not to mention that the American people thought he was below average.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh.. by the way...I guess I missed the part where we delineated which of Jimmy Carter's policies we "object" to.

"Human Rights" as a real Foreign Policy issue? Reducing dependence on foreign oil?

Few presidents in modern times have been as devoted to the goal that American foreign policy should reflect the nation's highest moral ideals as Jimmy Carter. At a time when the United States was still grappling with its own problems of race relations and human rights, Carter forthrightly advocated a policy that held other countries to the highest standard possible, a standard by which, he believed, Americans would want themselves to be judged. In 1980, for example, following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, the Carter administration cancelled American participation in the summer Olympics scheduled for Moscow as a protest against the invasion.

Quote from Jimmy Carter:

..."The Vietnamese war produced a profound moral crisis, sapping worldwide faith in our own policy and our system of life, a crisis of confidence made even more grave by the covert pessimism of some of our leaders.

In less than a generation, we've seen the world change dramatically. The daily lives and aspirations of most human beings have been transformed. Colonialism is nearly gone. A new sense of national identity now exists in almost 100 new countries that have been formed in the last generation. Knowledge has become more widespread. Aspirations are higher. As more people have been freed from traditional constraints, more have been determined to achieve, for the first time in their lives, social justice.

The world is still divided by ideological disputes, dominated by regional conflicts, and threatened by danger that we will not resolve the differences of race and wealth without violence or without drawing into combat the major military powers. We can no longer separate the traditional issues of war and peace from the new global questions of justice, equity, and human rights.

It is a new world, but America should not fear it. It is a new world, and we should help to shape it. It is a new world that calls for a new American foreign policy -- a policy based on constant decency in its values and on optimism in our historical vision.

We can no longer have a policy solely for the industrial nations as the foundation of global stability, but we must respond to the new reality of a politically awakening world.

We can no longer expect that the other 150 nations will follow the dictates of the powerful, but we must continue -- confidently -- our efforts to inspire, to persuade, and to lead.

Our policy must reflect our belief that the world can hope for more than simple survival and our belief that dignity and freedom are fundamental spiritual requirements. Our policy must shape an international system that will last longer than secret deals."

[Ghost Dansing]

Baloney...Vietnam was about domino theory...and before that French Colonialism.

The Vietnamese people proclaimed their independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, the United States decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China.for whom the Vietnamese have no great love.but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists.

Ahh...Imperialism, and Colonialism...a conservative political philosophy from a bygone era.

And Baloney to you again...It is more like you call everything you disagree with "Liberal".A most interesting fact is that our so called "conservatives", in their laissez faire approach to market and economy, are in fact practicing classically Liberal economics.

It is modern Republicanism that has confused terms...not I.

[DavidByron]

You'll have to reprint your list of all the court decisions declaring Bush's actions illegal

I'm sure it's as lengthy as the number of court decisions saying Clinton lied under oath.

Again your responses are quite dishonest it seems to me. You know Bush violated the UN charter and it doesn't bother you one bit. Does it? If I proved Bush violated the UN charter to your satisfaction it wouldn't change anything would it? Again and again Republicans seem to be afraid to state their real feelings on issues. Why is that?

[RL]

The peanut farmer in chief (carter) endorsed and supported ayatollah khomeini's evil, murderous, and very-bloody islamoterrorist revolution in Iran; he was friends with and met with the evil islamonazi-terrorist arafart on many occasions; and he believes that American taxpayers ought to support the evil islamonazi-terrorist organization from hell, named ham-as (kinda ironic that their name starts with ham).

And this person has the chutzpah to call himself a Christian American ! carter is not a Christian American; he is a demented and misguided islamonazi-terrorist enemy of the USA. You can tell alot about a man by his choice of friends; jimmy carter's friends: ayatollah khomeini, yasser arafart, hamas.

if you read this and you happen to live in the great state of Nevada, please don't vote for his son for the US Senate this November (like father, like son). Thank you and God bless you. God Bless America.

"The Real jimmy carter: How America's Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators, and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry" by Steven F. Hayward

americasupportsyou.mil
specialops.org
woundedwarriorproject.org

God Bless and protect the courageous, honorable, and patriotic men and women of the US Armed Forces. in Jesus' Mighty Name, Amen.

"Beware of no man more than of yourself; we carry our own worst enemies within us." Charles H. Spurgeon

[K T Cat]

Forget the article, that portrait is way too creepy. If I had been Dr. Stadelmann, I'd have asked for my money back.

:-)

[Jeff Medcalf]

So, Ghost, your definition of "conservative" is "anything I [meaning you] disagree with"?

[Washington]

Ghost,

You are stretching so far you might pop! We know the history of Iran but what I am talking about is Carter's policies, not the big, bad world that was present when he arrived in office. Every President takes on problems of the past but their handling of their administration determines whether the results are positive-or in the case of Carter-negative. Desert One was an example of his castration of the military and his disdain for any military operations. Thus, when he wanted something done to salvage his political career it failed. I would also love to hear your defense of his domestic program.

As for "conservative" policies with respect to Vietnam - one can conclude that Woodrow Wilson had conservative policies compared with his European counterparts. You used the term and failed to offer an explanation thus my response. However, I spent 8 years studying military history as a discipline and the cause and effect of Vietnam does not follow your earlier comment. We have some wome wonderful material from the Kennedy administration that points to "progressive" plans and thought for Vietnam, initiated by that administrattion. I don't want to use this space to discuss Vietnam in-depth but would be happy via email to do so.

[Ghost Dansing]

"Ghost, Who put conservative policies into play in Vietnam? JFK, LBJ?"

The implication is that because their Political Party was Democratic, they were not conservatives.

You're missing a sense or history and ideological migrations; caught in the rhetoric of modern Republicanism.

First, the term "conservative" is not restricted to "Democratic or Republican" Partys. Secondly, the foreign policy of the U.S. Government, and Americans throughtout the majority of U.S. History has been conservative and hawkish...when one thinks of "domino theory" and the Cold War, one thinks of conservative foreign policies, in every administration; Democrat and Republican.

Also, when one thinks of the Desert One incident as an example of Carter's ineptness, and military decline...and I counter with historical context and the world Carter inherited, we can recall historical facts like this:

By the summer of 1953, the British and American governments initiated a joint Anglo-American plan for the covert overthrow of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran. The plan called Operation AJAX with Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA Mideast Agent in charge (a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a distant cousin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt).

On August 19th, 1953, the British Intelligence Service (MI6) and the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), engineered to perform the next phase of their plan against the Iranian national government of Dr. Mossadegh. On that tragic day, a group of tanks led by General Fazlollah Zahedi moved through Tehran and surrounded Dr. Mossadegh's residence. The forces behind the coup d'état also managed to pull a large number of bribed hooligans into the streets to rally against Dr. Mossadegh. Finally the army and police forces let the mob reach the Prime Minister's residence and after hours of bombarding and fighting a bloody battle with the small group of Dr. Mossadegh's loyal guards, they entered the house and after plundering it, they burned it down. In a matter of hours Dr. Mossadegh and his top cabinet leaders surrendered themselves to the coup d'état Prime Minister, General Fazlollah Zahedi, and the Shah flew back to Iran, as a U.S. puppet.

On August 19th, 1953 (28th day of Mordad 1332, Persian calendar); the Shah's dictatorship restored. "I owe my throne to the God, my people, my army and to you", the Shah reportedly told the CIA Mideast Agent, Kermit Roosevelt.

Dr. Mossadegh remains a figure of tremendous stature in the history of modern Iran. As an individual he had a reputation for honesty, integrity, and sincerity. He strongly opposed British and, later, American influence in Iran. He was an eloquent, impassioned orator, and his speeches are still widely read in Iran.

The seeds of Desert One were sewn in 1953 by conservative foreign policy. The economic environment Jimmy Carter inherited were sewn by over a decade of warfare in Indochina, motivated by the Domino Theory, and a growing dependency on external sources for fossil fuel, driven by conservative economic policies.

Jimmy Carter actually had "Human Rights" as a political agenda, and decreasing America's dependency on foreign oil, way back in the 1970's. I guess he was just ahead of his time.

[Darrell]

You'll have to reprint your list of all the court decisions declaring Bush's actions illegal, David. It's hard to keep track of "balloon juice." How does that song by Nena go?
99(Luftballoons) Red Balloons
Couldn't hold the air that's in your head...

Remember, just saying it doesn't make it so.

[DavidByron]

will our esteemed friends on the Left please make up their minds, whether or not it is their position that the law must be upheld

I'm afraid that's the question you yourself must answer. There's nothing inconsistent with my own position. It is the right that has the habit of making a lot of noise about standing for a principle before attacking it.

Respect for the law and constitution? Republicans used to make a lot of noise about those things. And now what? Now they only have contempt for them. Therefore as I said earlier I am more of a conservative than many here.

[DavidByron]

I don't understand. Bush has no integrity and under his rule America has no integrity in matters of international law -- a position supported by the majority here and the majority of his party I would guess. Why doesn't he simply ignore the law? Certainly he claims that he has the power, as a war time "unitary executive" to simply cancel this agreement. He's violated far more serious treaties many times.

Presumably Bush has other motivations for denying these people their day in court.

[Edd]

I am sorry that I voted for Jimmy Carter but came quickly to loathe the absurdity, bureaucratic inadequacy, and addled incompetence of Jimmy Carter and his Administration. As for Ms. Rice and I will include President Bush’s second term they continue to weaken the sovereignty of the United States of America by giving credence to the very fact of Moslem and Islam religiosity. They need only look to the impotently appeasing Europeans to the ultimate creation of an Islamic Europe.

[Washington]

Ghost,

Who put conservative policies into play in Vietnam? JFK, LBJ?

As for Mr. Carter he was the weakest Head of State, domestically and internationally, that we suffered through since 1932. His handling of, among other things, the CIA left that agency with NO human intel until 1982. He emasculated the military, apparent when he decided to launch Desert One and had to be informed it failed - a direct result of his personal intervention in military affairs. His most trusted advisor in the military, Admiral Hyman Rickover thought that Carter was ineffective. His economic policies were horrendous and his coddling of dictators and tyrants was legendary - they wanted Carter reelected.

He was a disaster-not because he was a Democrat. It is because he was, at best, inept.

[Indigo Red]

I was to my everlasting regret and shame a Carter supporter back then. I have grown up since then and see him as the naked Emperor he really was. Carter was the worst President the US has ever had and just when one would think he couldn't get any worse, he has become the worst Ex-President we have ever had.

The agreement is despicable. The entire manner in which it was written and endorsed is a crime. We not only negotiated with terrorists, but we gave them everything they demanded. Thank goodness Reagan came along when he did, otherwise the whole country may have been negotiated away.

Now, because of the fool Carter, the Administration and all future Administrations are stuck with a dangerous precedent. Is there no way to abrogate the Algiers Agreement?

[Liquid]

I love the picture today Alexandra!
This new revelation of how Carter handled the Iranian Hostage deal is just another example of him not having any backbone. It really doesn't suprise me one bit! The crazy regime's know how to manipulate the passive ones! Carter was mush in their hands!

[North by Northwest]

Ghost,

If you really want to get a feel for who Jimmy Carter was, and still is in real life, watch the Episode IV of "24", in particular the last 7 hours (from midnight to 7AM). The producers of "24" consulted with a number of high-ranking officials, who worked at the WH during the Carter Administration and were intimately familiar with the 'real' Him on a daily basis. The Vice President in "24", who assumes the Presidency following the near fatal plane crash of Air Force One, which left the acting President incapacitated, is entirely fashioned after Carter's persona and his era; it is an eyeopener.

[Ghost Dansing]

Jimmy Carter was, and still is, one of the most competent Presidents this Nation has ever had. His views on foreign policy are then, and now, are still more comprehensive and insightful than anything provided by the current Republican administration.

Carter inherited an America that was suffering from long-term foreign and domestic policies that are remarkably like the ones proffered today by the Republicans, and for which we will suffer again.

Ill-advised "conservative" war policies that resulted in 11 years of attrition warfare in Vietnam, foreign policies that supported despotic regimes that bred massive domestic unrest and ushered in the age of Islamic extremism, like the Shah of Iran, knee-jerk "down-sizing" of the post-Vietnam military, not to mention the malaise caused by a decade of an unpopular war on the military itself, economic inflation, also aggravated at least in part by printing money in order to pay for the war and dependencies on foreign oil...then there was the incredible corruption of the Republicans in the White House (Nixon).

We're actually replaying history...the problem wasn't Jimmy Carter.

[Washington]

Mr. Carter was a very weak President. His coddling of terrorist's has ramifications to this day.

However, as to this "agreement", it is obviously misguided. "International Norms" lead us to further coddle dictators and I fail to see why rejecting that agreement would harm, any further, our interests overseas. Iran is a pariah state. Diplomacy is the fine art of pinching the cheeks of rogue states. It is with profound regret that I am witnessing this nation worrying about one agreement and not worrying about others. Either we stand up to Iran diplomatically and, as a last resort militarily, or we live with the consequences.

[Jeremiah]

Baroness! You might get nominated for some journalistm award for this one! Who ever heard of this story that so closely mingles human interest, diplomacy, and "Where Were You In 19__?"-nostalgia? The moderate in me first wants to identify some virtue in Carter, to not just run to the peanut (heh-heh) gallery, but ... after reading this ... and this: http://www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/story.php?storyid=355 ... I wonder if it's time to get a F*CK C*RTER button to go with my F*CK IR*N one.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

This is probably one of the worst agreements I have ever heard of. It is simply too sad to put into words. The 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'-line was of course always a lie, but this is utterly ridiculous: Negotiate okay, but to give them everything they want... ?

Indeed, it now is a difficult legal question. Are there ways of calling this agreement illegal somehow?

Anyhow: In essence, the Bush administration is bound by this (agreement).

[North by Northwest]

No doubt we'll be told that this is further evidence for the high-handed arrogance and hypocritical attitude of the Administration in as much as it is OK for it to break the law, allegedly, in the NSA warrantless wiretapping saga, but in the Iran Hostage matter, it suddenly believes in the strict adherence to contractual obligations and legal terms.

To which we'll dutifully reply: First, it is the Administration's case that it did not break the law--the overwhelming rejection of Feingold's resolution by his own colleagues is a strong indication that this is in fact the accurate legal position. Second, will our esteemed friends on the Left please make up their minds, whether or not it is their position that the law must be upheld no matter the circumstances. And if that is their position, where then, pray tell, is the criticism of substance in this case. Third, what are the constructive suggestions put forward to solve this wretched dilemma. Are they in all seriousness suggesting, that the Administration for some warped and irrational reason begrudges the hostages financial compensation for their ordeal and suffering from Iran. What in Gods name could be the reason for such injustice other than the simple fact that their disaster-of-a-President bound the Administration's hands to this very day?

[Qiao]

I used to believe this man, Carter, was merely incompetent. These days it has become hard to deny that he is evil. That he is an enemy of the United States is beyond doubt.