What Obama did is beyond the pale, if in fact he did do it. It’s worth repeating:

Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

The Obama campaign has strongly denied this with great vehemence, which indicates what a serious charge it is.

Such private discussions, seeking to undermine the current administration, are clearly a violation of the Logan Act. But the Logan Act is a toothless paper tiger; it never will be tested. It’s better to point out the sheer nefariousness of such actions by Obama (if true). They also reveal the complete deception and treachery of his entire campaign: “Out of Iraq now!” was the drumbeat during his entire campaign against Clinton.

Obama’s defenders might claim that Obama believes that the Senate reserves the right to vote on any such troop reduction act, and he was only defending that right. But that’s a Constitutional question related to the Senate’s role in ratification of treaties, and in no way excuses the idea that Obama visited a foreign country, spoke in private with its government representatives, and demanded that they agree to his demands rather than those of the Executive Branch’s representatives.

The political question is Obama’s to debate in the Senate. He simply is not allowed to do what he did (if he did it). Let us not forget Pelosi’s visit to Syria’s Assad. There have been many questions surrounding that visit as well. The Democrats seem quite comfortable with these actions that violate all sense of American separation of powers.

Contrast this with Obama’s intentions of winning an election by having more Americans die in Iraq, so as to provide better press coverage for Obama and more bad coverage for Bush’s war.

Intention doesn’t have anything to do with it, actually. What is fundamental is catching people in the act. Having their letters, personal transactions (funds, weapons, information), and/or witnessed confessions of their own motivations.

If you have such things, then a court, a tribunal even, can use it to prove an intention, even if there was no such intention.

Given human self-deception capabilities. you have to rely upon concrete proof and actions, rather than biased and subjective readings of what people intend.

And yes, I’m making a very technical argument here. Obama is certainly guilty of old-fashioned, non-Constitutional treason. He’s guilty of violating the Logan Act. And I think he’s also quite possibly guilty of Constitutional treason given that his goal was to harm American troops to benefit himself, rather than trying to benefit himself with the unintended or lesser consequence of harming the troops.

No matter how you look at it, Obama is a “very bad man.” (That’s a Seinfeld quote, by the way.)

The Supreme Court has held that “adhering” requires an intent to help the nation’s enemies. Merely knowledge that one’s actions will help the enemies isn’t enough. Thus, for instance, in Haupt v. United States (1947), the Court concluded that a father’s sheltering his son — a Nazi saboteur — isn’t treason if his intention was simply to help his son (as a result of “parental solicitude”). To be treasonous, the father’s actions had to be intended to aid the Nazis.

If Kerry’s intercourse with the North Vietnamese wouldn’t be covered, it seems really improbable in the extreme that Obama’s intercourse with the government of an ally would.

He has however disregarded the Constitution, as many in Congress seem to do. The sole repository of foreign policy duties lies within the executive branch. The Senate can either confirm or deny the agreements the President comes up with.

I would criticize him for the fact that he does not know this. Any pretense that the government of Iraq needs to take into account the US Congress in their talks shows he is clueless about the Presidency.

Ready to lead on day one, with no knowledge of his Constitutional role.

My take on the War — and this particular time in the War — is that our troops our in Iraq trouncing the bad guys. Obama’s point of view is now, and certainly was back in July, when he made these statements — that the war is a failure, and that our troops are there as target practice for some amorphous “insurgents.” (I say amorphous because the Democrats keep denying that these are Al Qaeda people and they’ve assured us that Islam is a religion of peace.)

Because Obama’s view is/was that our troops our in the equivalent of a turkey shoot, with them being the turkeys, when he specifically requested that those same American troops be left to the depredations of those amorphously identified insurgents, Obama provided aid and comfort to the enemy. More American turkeys for them to shoot could only be a good thing from their point of view. (Mind you, I’m looking at the Iraq theater through the Obama prism.)

Likewise, by bad mouthing our administration abroad and implying that it is ineffectual, Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Certainly, we’ve taken heart from captured communications between Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers in which the writers speak badly of their own command and troops.

And you’re right, of course — Obama’s also violating the Logan Act.

Article III Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I think it would be pretty hard to claim this was an overt act of levying war or of adhering to the enemies of the USA.

Now, if you wanted to suggest it was a violation of the Logan Act I’d be right there with you.

[Updated]
The New York Post’s Amir Taheri is reporting that Barack Obama’s statements on pulling out of Iraq contradict what he told the Iraqis during his Chosen One World Tour this last summer:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy with…