posted
Did Pelosi break the law when speaking with Syria?
Logan Act:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. 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).
posted
I'm not sure if the "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States" element is met by what she did in Syria.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She discussed current relations with Syrian government officials in a time when the US has a policy of diplomatic noncommunication. I agree that trying her would not hold water, but what do you think are the motives behind those who would sumbit this clause as possible repercussions to Pelosi's visit? If Stephan came up with this act of his own volition and did not hear it mentioned somewhere else, I would like to know how he might have come to that conclusion.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I am saying that from the possible connections and based on some comments from the administration against Pelosi's visit, I wonder if this is not another method of political maneuvering.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately I overheard people discussing a Wall Street Journal article about it this morning, that got me curious enough to look up the act. I wish I could say I had heard of the act before this.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any one could post the Wall Street Journal article, I would appreciate it. Bugmenot.com is now blocked on my work's network, and you need to be registered to read it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Do you have an opinion on the Republicans' visits to Syria?
edit: Members of Congress making visits like this seem, to me, to be a somewhat accepted practice, but goodness knows, I could be mistaken.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how Limbaugh, Cheney, and the Bush Administration publically disapprove of Pelosi's visit to Syria to the point of calling it "bad behavior," but they had nothing to say when Republicans, including Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, also visited Syria earlier this week.
The double standard is appalling. Besides, a Republican congressman, Darrell Issa, accompanied Pelosi on her trip, and he also met with Syrian President Assad. Why isn't anything being said about him, and all criticism is made towards Pelosi? Ick.
Also, I'm trying to understand what "United States" means in the Act. Does that mean authority given by the Executive Branch? Or something else?
Posts: 12 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
J_84, it means the current policies of the American government or any political or diplomatic doctrine in place and active. This is why that act might be used as an argument against Pelosi, but I still do not see Pelosi's actions having enough evidence to hold weight if someone tried to convict her of it. It seems to me to be scare tactics.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
There could be a difference if they did clearly state they were not representing the administration, and Pelosi did not. I don't know if that is clear or not though. I think they acted just as wrong myself though.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Do you have an opinion on the Republicans' visits to Syria?
Could you provide a link detailing what they did while their. Pelosi pretty clearly was engaging in foreign affairs - which is what I asked Tom about, not merely a visit.
What about you Squick? What's your opinion on the matter? Was their some reason you felt a burning need to know what I thought about it? Or did you just mistakenly think that you were cleverly going to expose an inconsistency on my part?
quote:The double standard is appalling.
You need to do more than merely show two groups "visited." Visiting is not covered by this law. What did Wolf do in Syria? Did he attempt to carry messages from a U.S. ally to a country that the U.S., as part of its foreign affairs, is trying to isolate?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, do you have an opinion on Pelosi conducting private foreign affairs?
I think it's staggeringly irrelevant. It's hardly unprecedented; presidential candidates regularly pose with foreign leaders to pump up their gravitas, and I'm sure Pelosi's trying to do something similar -- even if just with the Administration. And I suspect the administration of calling her bluff, saying in effect "you don't have the right to talk to foreign leaders, little lady."
They're just writing their names in the snow over a meaningless war while more important domestic issues are ignored.
But, again, you know I dislike the entire CONCEPT of the executive branch; I think it's unnecessary at best and fascist at worst. If we handed over all foreign affairs to Congress, honestly, I would shed exactly one tear and move on with a smile on my face. I'm a lot more bothered about Cheney meeting with oil executives in private than I am about a single Congressperson meeting with the head of state of a largely irrelevant country in private, to be honest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You need to do more than merely show two groups "visited." Visiting is not covered by this law. What did Wolf do in Syria? Did he attempt to carry messages from a U.S. ally to a country that the U.S., as part of its foreign affairs, is trying to isolate?
Is this something Pelosi did? From the coverage, I can't tell that she did anything different from the Republicans. Do you have anything that establishes that she did?
Certainly, the White House has been faulting her for merely visiting Syria.
edit: And honestly, I don't know much at all about this story. From what I do know, it sounds like something I should have little interest in anyway, but if people are going to make a deal out of it, I'd like to know why they are doing so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this something Pelosi did? From the coverage, I can't tell that she did anything different from the Republicans. Do you have anything that establishes that she did?
I have a report that she claims to have done so - will that suffice? "Pelosi also said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. However, an Israeli government official later said this would only be possible if Syria abandoned terror and stopped assisting terror groups."
Why are you interrogating me on this if you haven't done basic research yourself on this?
quote:Certainly, the White House has been faulting her for merely visiting Syria.
Are you interested in the White House's opinion or mine? Why is this at all relevant to me?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have to say that this makes me happy in somewhat a mean way. I sincerely hope that enough rabble rousing gets behind this Logan Act nonsense to actually charge and try Pelosi. That would be good for this country right now, in my opinion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: I do have to say that this makes me happy in somewhat a mean way. I sincerely hope that enough rabble rousing gets behind this Logan Act nonsense to actually charge and try Pelosi. That would be good for this country right now, in my opinion.
Seriously? Or are you being sarcastic?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Forget it. I was looking for information and you seemed to think that this was actually something that deserved attention. I don't need your hostility or the tooth pulling that seems to be involved in getting things from you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, Forget it. I was looking for information and you seemed to think that this was actually something that deserved attention. I don't need your hostility or the tooth pulling that seems to be involved in getting things from you.
What tooth-pulling? You asked, I answered. You then doubted my answer, and I provided proof of my answer. Pelosi did something I find objectionable. It is far worse for her to do it than any other member of the House, based on her position.
You reworded the question I asked Tom in a way that removed the issue I cared about. I asked for the information I would need to provide an answer to that question. You still haven't provided an answer to ME about the question you asked me. Did the Republicans do what Pelosi did? If so, then I think they shouldn't have. If not, then I think it's an entirely different matter.
Now it's not worth the "effort" to "get things" out of me? You asked. I either answered or told you what else I needed to do in order to answer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan: no, I am serious. The United States needs to see this sort of behavior from their government right now concerning the conduct in both the Democratic and Republican parties. There is too much clandestine operation, too much back room dealing, and too much lying about what we as a nation do and do not do. Such a trial would begin a snowball effect that would being more of these things to light in the media. I highly doubt anything would happen to Pelosi, because she has done little or no different than others have done over the past six or more years but has gone relatively unreported or completely undiscussed. I do not mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I do not mean that there are some vast conspiracies to harm loads of people and take over government. I am saying that the "business as usual" routine in our government has become consistently more secretive and questionable, and there have been few checks on the behavior of those we choose to represent us.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Consider the issue dropped. I don't feel like having to deal with you right now.
So that "backing stuff up" crap you like to spew on and on about is only for other people, not you?
I'm not playing any games. I answered your questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine, or simply never address me again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I know very little about this. I saw/heard about the trip. I've heard what sounded like the normal political crap from the White House about it. Neither one of which led me to believe there was anything particularly interesting. You seemed to have thought differently. I guess I was at fault by trying to get you to explain why.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Stephan: no, I am serious. The United States needs to see this sort of behavior from their government right now concerning the conduct in both the Democratic and Republican parties. There is too much clandestine operation, too much back room dealing, and too much lying about what we as a nation do and do not do. Such a trial would begin a snowball effect that would being more of these things to light in the media. I highly doubt anything would happen to Pelosi, because she has done little or no different than others have done over the past six or more years but has gone relatively unreported or completely undiscussed. I do not mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I do not mean that there are some vast conspiracies to harm loads of people and take over government. I am saying that the "business as usual" routine in our government has become consistently more secretive and questionable, and there have been few checks on the behavior of those we choose to represent us.
I guess what worries me is that if nothing happens to Pelosi in an actual trial, will others follow suit and make things worse?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, I know very little about this. I saw/heard about the trip. I've heard what sounded like the normal political crap from the White House about it. Neither one of which led me to believe there was anything particularly interesting. You seemed to have thought differently. I guess I was at fault by trying to get you to explain why.
That's how you get someone to explain why? You didn't ask me "why?" You attempted to ask me if I was going to hold the Republicans to the same standards. You never actually asked me what I thought about Pelosi's trip.
I've actually given a lot of information about this. None of which you've done anything with except doubt what I've said. I've explicitly stated the thing I find troubling about her trip and flat out stated that if the Republicans did it too, then I find that troubling. I've given you what you've asked for.
quote:Is it meeting with them at all? Is it the carrying a message from Israel?
Why are these things that we should be concerned about?
Because foreign policy is explicitly delegated to the executive in the Constitution and because unauthorized diplomacy under the color of authority (Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency) makes it harder for us to achieve diplomatic goals. The President, rightly or wrongly, is trying to isolate Syria. The mixed message is probably worse than either actually isolating them or actually engaging them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How was Pelosi carrying on diplomacy for the United States by carrying a message for another country? If she was claiming any authority to speak for the US, I could see the problem, but I don't see how her delivering a message for someone else is interfering with US relations with anyone.
The isolating them thing is what I was wondering about with the Republican visits. If Republicans are visiting Syria and meeting with the leaders, how could they said to be isolated/not engaged?
edit: Also, all of the White House criticism I've seen has been about her visiting (and talking about her visit). I haven't seen anything about the carrying a message for Israel, which is one of the reason why I knew nothing about it). Have they made complaints about it and if not, why not?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I guess what worries me is that if nothing happens to Pelosi in an actual trial, will others follow suit and make things worse?
My hope is that more investigation into behavior already going on takes place.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the entire House of Representatives terrifying.
Because the districts these people come from are so small, for these people to be making national policy is all but insane. They're sort of the celebrity local politicians, and have to cater to the whims of a small but often very outspoken group of people. They're contstantly facing re-election, and they tend to be far more extremist in their views than any other branch of the government. It's like the more people you have to have to elect somebody, the more middle of the road they have to be.
This is the place where people like Pelosi or, say, Tom Tancredo, find a national voice, even though these people really have no business escaping local politics.
For them to throw themselves on the world-wide stage leaves me trembling on my bed in the fetal position.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I haven't seen anything about the carrying a message for Israel, which is one of the reason why I knew nothing about it). Have they made complaints about it and if not, why not?
posted
Dag, I think I may have missed where the White House had anything to say about her carrying the message in that. Could you point it out for me?
edit: The only thing I saw about the White House's response was:
quote:Pelosi also drew fire from Washington for saying that the "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the Bush's national security advisor, said that that road unfortunately "is lined with the victims of Hamas and Hizballah, the victims of terrorists who cross from Syria into Iraq."
Johndroe called the trip "counterproductive."
President Bush, whose administration is trying to isolate Syria, said that meeting with Assad delivered "mixed messages" since it is a terror-sponsoring regime.
Which, I think, is sort of what I was saying. They are faulting her for meeting with Assad, something that Republicans have also done.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There could be a difference if they did clearly state they were not representing the administration, and Pelosi did not. I don't know if that is clear or not though. I think they acted just as wrong myself though.
There's not enough background on the law in wiki and the accompanying article. A few questions to bring me up to speed (Dag?):
A) Reading the law directly, it seems to say that it does not matter whether or not the accused represent the administration. It just seems to matter whether they carried on correspondence or tried to influence a foreign state in regards to their policies affecting the US. Is this correct?
B) When they say "any correspondence or intercourse" does it have to be in person? Does there necessarily have to be a two-way dialog?
C) This seems to be a pretty restrictive law. My interpretation seems to be, that if there is a dispute with China, say China is importing too many cheap DVD players into the US, a private citizen who writes a letter to China, asking them to change their trade policy could be charged under the law. Am I interpreting this wrong?
D) How about a citizen that publishes a letter in a public venue, say a newspaper, entitled "To Iran" and then publically encourages Iran to kill US troops in Iraq?
E) Does Canada even have a similar law?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of curious as to the usage of United States, as opposed to any specification of The Executive Branch or at least United States' Government. Is this a common wording?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'll have some time over the weekend to track this down, but there are conflicting reports in regard to just what Pelosi said -- her own account being backed up by a Republican congressional rep:
quote:Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, told me in a brief phone conversation: "We never said the (Israeli's) position changed."
Instead, he said, Pelosi accurately conveyed Israel's position: should the Syrians end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, then the Israelis would be willing to talk.
Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings.
So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much.
The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of.
In an e-mail follow-up, Daly wrote: "WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong -- she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel's position."
Another accusation made in the editorial is that Pelosi is trying to create a "shadow presidency," that her Middle East trip is part of that effort.
Daly rejected this. "We're trying to work with the administration," he said.
The sense that Pelosi and her delegation have reinforced the Bush administration in Middle Eastern capitals doesn't come from her spokesman alone.
Rep. David Hobson of Ohio, the only Republican on the trip, confirmed to a Dayton Daily News reporter that Pelosi et al have presented a united front as far as U.S. policy towards Syria.
Another thing is that this is really nothing new or unique to this Congress. I watch a lot of news shows, and several academics have mentioned this sort of thing isn't that unusual.
quote:House and Senate leaders have a long history of being regular travelers abroad, and they have sometimes overstepped their boundaries. Famously, according to documents obtained by the National Security Archives at George Washington University, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., secretly advised Colombian authorities to ignore the human rights requirements that had been attached to U.S. military aid to Colombia during the Clinton years.
Gingrich going to Israel (but IIRC, his trip wasn't diplomatic per se, but he made a spectacular blunder in a speech that badly misstated U.S. policy).
Hastert in Colombia.
I've complained in writing about all 3 of them at various points. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a problem with members of the legislative body trying to conduct diplomacy outside of their authority too. I just haven't seen how this is an instance of that.
edit: Is it outside of her authority to carry a message? I haven't seen anything to convince me that it is.
And, as I've said, the criticisms of the White House don't seem to be mentioning this at all, but rather a hypocritical condemnation of meeting with them at all.
If they felt they had a case on the message thing, I'd expect that they'd be trying to use that as much as possible.
posted
I'm interested in the definitions of "disputes or controversies". Depending on the definitions, that could mean the act has (probably) been violated during the negotiation of most of the major trade deals of the past few decades.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The message she took from Olmert to Syria doesn't have anything to do with the position of the US on Syria, or the other way around. It has to do with the situation between those two nations.
Other than that, I've seen nothing that hints at Pelosi trying to make any backdoor deals with Syria behind Bush's back. It seems to me they just talked. Is Pelosi talking to Syrian officials at all against the law? If so, the Republican delegation is guilty as well.
Edit to add: And I wanted to add, that I think the recess appointment by Bush was wretched and underhanded. That is NOT why recess appointments were invented. They were created to get stuff done when Congress was in recess, they were NOT created to backdoor a nominee that would never pass the Congress through the system against their wishes. It's an abuse of power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm interested in the definitions of "disputes or controversies". Depending on the definitions, that could mean the act has (probably) been violated during the negotiation of most of the major trade deals of the past few decades.
Sorry, I can't think of anything remotely connected to work that would let me use Westlaw to research this. But that's what I'm most interested in, too.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go back and reread the thread, then reread Squicky's several year history of demanding people back up what they say about him, then get back to me, Samp.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not a personality fued directly. MrSq is constantly asking other people things he doesn't expect of himself. Agree or disagree with him, but Dagonee almost always backs up his claims with something. If he doesn't, he is alwaysfinding info. for those who ask.
All MrSq does is put out his opinions and then demand everyone else to back up their own. When pressed to support his own views, he calls the other person unreasonable and drops the subject (sort of).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I just wondered why dagonee acted like he was going straight for squicky's jugular at first addressing. It relies on prior knowledge of them getting salty at each other, otherwise it just seems like very odd and unprovoked contentiousness.
But, now I am better informed and know which farmhouses not to stand between!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
