Also Very Political

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." The Logan Act dates from 1799 [yes 1799]. Comment?

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.
 
Is this 'Robert Turner' guy the same one who wrote 'The Turner Diaries'? :rolleyes:
 
R. Richard said:
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." The Logan Act dates from 1799 [yes 1799]. Comment?
Wow. She "flaunted the constitution." I mean, how could she? How might she have gotten the idea that flaunting the constitution is acceptable? :rolleyes:

Two wrongs don't make a right...but really, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, I'd love it if the President tried to arrest her for this. The Dems are just itching for an excuse to bring the President HIMSELF up on charges of "flaunting" the constitution and this would give it to them. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Oh, one other minor problem...what dispute or controversy are we having? The court may have defined the executive branch as the "U.S." in the above...but what constitutes a "dispute"? The author of the article says we're at war, but um, no we're not. We're occupying territories, and there is NO RECOGNIZED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT that we are currently at war with. Soooooo. What dispute or controversy did she try to influence?
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
Wow. She "flaunted the constitution." I mean, how could she? How might she have gotten the idea that flaunting the constitution is acceptable? :rolleyes:

Two wrongs don't make a right...but really, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, I'd love it if the President tried to arrest her for this. The Dems are just itching for an excuse to bring the President HIMSELF up on charges of "flaunting" the constitution and this would give it to them. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Shame on her.

:rolleyes:
 
Ah, but she does have the authority of the United States Government, as the Speaker of the House she speaks for those Representatives elected to their positions in the House. So where is the crime?
 
She is proving to be a loyal american

Anybody who opposes this government is proving themselves to be a loyal american in my book. Every american should do everything in their power to oppose this president who thinks that he can do no wrong and that the laws don't apply to him.

I applaud her actions and hope that others follow her example.
mike
 
mikey2much said:
Anybody who opposes this government is proving themselves to be a loyal american in my book. Every american should do everything in their power to oppose this president who thinks that he can do no wrong and that the laws don't apply to him.

I applaud her actions and hope that others follow her example.
mike
I really wouldn't go that far. While Bush is an idiot, he will only be around until the end of 2008.

As for Speaker Nancy, she's as big a boob as Bush and she has no business promoting any type of foreign policy for the United States.
 
It's likely Pelosi broke no laws.

The Logan Act

"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.

"This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Since the passage of the Logan Act, only two people have been arrested for violating it. In both of those cases, all charges were dropped before any factual issues in either case were heard by any court. Thus, this act has not yet been interpreted by any court to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.

Many constitutional scholars believe the act to be unconstitutional based on the vagueness of the words "defeat" and "measures." The only court case to even discuss the Logan Act, Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), made the same suggestion of the act's being unconstitutional, but did not rule on that issue.

Furthermore, there is substantial debate as to whether permission to conduct meetings such as Pelosi's (or Tom DeLay's with Israeli and Palestinian leaders a few years ago) even is limited to the executive branch. The constitution makes it clear that both the executive branch and the legislative branch have substantial powers when it comes to foreign relations.
 
How soon they forget...

Here's another take on this faux-outrage:
Thursday April 5, 2007 18:40 EST
Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China

This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:

New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.

Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.

Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.


Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's. Quite the contrary, many right-wing leaders -- including Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and Vin Weber -- went on PBS and praised Gingrich's "aggressive role in China."

They couldn't have been more pleased that Gingrich did what, in their minds, the Clinton administration was failing to do -- standing up to the Chinese. Gingrich, as House Speaker, was heroic for going on his own and doing that. The same behavior from Pelosi (which I'm sure is, in actuality, completely different for all sorts of unknown and indiscernible reasons) is now both a grave political mistake and a reckless breach of protocol.

-- Glenn Greenwald
 
*yawn*

Corporate officers of american corporations dealing with foreign governments...

Unless you're supporting putting them ALL in jail, we can happily ignore this thread now.
 
You could also jail anyone trying to influence foreign governments about political prisoners; or about protecting rainforests, or saving the whales, or overseas aid, supporting missionary activities and charities, and certainly anything to do with global warming...

Have you enough jail spaces for all those?

Then every politician who travels abroad for whatever reason is probably covered by the Logan Act...

Will you have any non-criminal legislators left?

Og
 
oggbashan said:
You could also jail anyone trying to influence foreign governments about political prisoners; or about protecting rainforests, or saving the whales, or overseas aid, supporting missionary activities and charities, and certainly anything to do with global warming...

Have you enough jail spaces for all those?

Then every politician who travels abroad for whatever reason is probably covered by the Logan Act...

Will you have any non-criminal legislators left?

Og

Come to think of it... American Culturalism has an affect on foreign governments, right?

All U.S. corporate entities, representatives, and employees who sell "American Culture" out of country must be put in jail.

You know this is great way to roll back the clock and make us isolationists again!!! Viva La Logan Act!
 
3113 said:
Wow. She "flaunted the constitution." I mean, how could she? How might she have gotten the idea that flaunting the constitution is acceptable? :rolleyes:

Two wrongs don't make a right...but really, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, I'd love it if the President tried to arrest her for this. The Dems are just itching for an excuse to bring the President HIMSELF up on charges of "flaunting" the constitution and this would give it to them. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Oh, one other minor problem...what dispute or controversy are we having? The court may have defined the executive branch as the "U.S." in the above...but what constitutes a "dispute"? The author of the article says we're at war, but um, no we're not. We're occupying territories, and there is NO RECOGNIZED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT that we are currently at war with. Soooooo. What dispute or controversy did she try to influence?

"May 11, 2004, President Bush today signed an Executive Order implementing sanctions on Syria pursuant to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 ("the Act"). With the implementation of these sanctions, the President has demonstrated U.S. resolve to address the Syrian government's support for terrorist groups, its continued military presence in Lebanon, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its actions to undermine U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq."

I would say that the sanctions imposed on Syria would amount to a dispute. Syria is a recognized [and more's the pity] foreign government. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives went to Syria, a foreign nation with which the United States is involved in a dispute and tried to influence foreign policy. Violation of the Logan Act seems like an open and shut case here.
 
R. Richard said:
I would say that the sanctions imposed on Syria would amount to a dispute. Syria is a recognized [and more's the pity] foreign government. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives went to Syria, a foreign nation with which the United States is involved in a dispute and tried to influence foreign policy. Violation of the Logan Act seems like an open and shut case here.
YOU would call this a "dispute" but there in lies the problem. "Dispute" is a pretty vague word. How much of a dispute? All out war or just, as said, sanctions? If we have tariffs against a country, then is it a dispute? We could then, seemingly, arrest Newt on going to China. And if sanctions...what kind? Open and shut to you, RR. But a lot of things are "open and shut" to you that, thank God, would not be so in rational and reasonable court of law.
 
Last edited:
oggbashan said:
You could also jail anyone trying to influence foreign governments about political prisoners; or about protecting rainforests, or saving the whales, or overseas aid, supporting missionary activities and charities, and certainly anything to do with global warming...

Have you enough jail spaces for all those?

Then every politician who travels abroad for whatever reason is probably covered by the Logan Act...

Will you have any non-criminal legislators left?

Og

The Logan Act only applies to foreign governments with which the US has a dispute or controversy. The prohibition only applies to those who act 'without authority of the United States.' If the United States does not object, then discourse about political prisoners, protecting rainforests, saving the whales, overseas aid and anything to do with global warming would not be a crime. As to supporting missionary activities and charities, the United States has tried and convicted several people, both citizens and non-citizens, for collecting money and furnishing it to what the United States lists as terrorist organizations. IIRC, the money collection was always done under the format of a charity.

Og, you ask, "Will you have any non-criminal legislators left?" I think that if you reflect upon your question a bit, you will see that the question has been answered even before said legislators got themselves elected. In the US, you gotta' have big bucks to win a national election. The obtaining of said big bucks inevitably leads to criminal activity.
 
Huckleman2000 said:
Is this 'Robert Turner' guy the same one who wrote 'The Turner Diaries'? :rolleyes:

Hucklebuck:
"Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security."
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Ah, but she does have the authority of the United States Government, as the Speaker of the House she speaks for those Representatives elected to their positions in the House. So where is the crime?

It has been long recognized that the US has one voice in foreign relations. That voice belongs to the President of the United States, not the Speaker of The House. As a specific example, treaties with foreign states are signed by the President of the United States.
 
What about the Republican Congressmen who visited Syria a few weeks before Pelosi. Why don't we see any mention of them in your rant?

Washington
GOP congressmen defend departure from Bush on Syria
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.05.2007

WASHINGTON — Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.
"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."
Washington accuses Syria of backing Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups it deems terrorist organizations. The Bush administration also says Syria is contributing to the violence in Iraq.
The White House stayed relatively quiet about a trip to Syria by Wolf and GOP Reps. Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.
The lawmakers said they made clear to Assad that they support Bush and were not representing the administration.
 
drksideofthemoon said:
What about the Republican Congressmen who visited Syria a few weeks before Pelosi. Why don't we see any mention of them in your rant?
"The lawmakers said they made clear to Assad that they support Bush and were not representing the administration."
Maybe Nancy didn't make it clear that she doesn't represent the Bush Administration? :rolleyes:
 
It's pretty funny to me. Go get her, GW.





Oh...I forgot. Half her delegation were REPUBLICAN congressmen. Does he go after them too? And what about the REPUBLICAN delegation that met with the Syrians last week? Are we "cherry picking" again, George? :D
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
It's pretty funny to me. Go get her, GW.





Oh...I forgot. Half her delegation were REPUBLICAN congressmen. Does he go after them too? And what about the REPUBLICAN delegation that met with the Syrians last week? Are we "cherry picking" again, George? :D

Lush Rimbaugh probably forgot to mention that to the "Ditto Heads" in his daily rant today.
 
Clearly, anyone who was an active member of Pelosi's group, was violating the law and also was very probably engaged in conspiracy. The Logan Act is law and conspiracy is also a felony crime. Anyone who openly breaks the law should be charged and tried.
 
R. Richard said:
Clearly, anyone who was an active member of Pelosi's group, was violating the law and also was very probably engaged in conspiracy. The Logan Act is law and conspiracy is also a felony crime. Anyone who openly breaks the law should be charged and tried.

Cool.

Dubya first.
 
R. Richard said:
Clearly, anyone who was an active member of Pelosi's group, was violating the law and also was very probably engaged in conspiracy. The Logan Act is law and conspiracy is also a felony crime. Anyone who openly breaks the law should be charged and tried.
The notion that the person third in line to the Presidency and leader of the House of Representatives is NOT a member of the government is ludicrous. While Turner has done his best to provide the GOP with a legal fig leaf, the issue is just another typical Karl Rove mind fucking.

Rumple Foreskin :cool:
 
Back
Top