WSJ Oped says Pelosi Violated the Logan Act, calls on Fitz

[usregimechange]

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."

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908



Do you suppose the reason that there has never been a conviction or prosecution from this law has something to do with it being completely unconstitutional? Might the Speaker of the US House Of Representatives and third in line to the President, have some degree of authority within the government of the United States? I think this is a more clear violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts. :crazy:

[scarface2004]

1. wsj is just ...

makin shit up! they suck!

[Solo_in_MD]

10. What are they making up? The Logan Act, their interpretation, or what Pelosi did?

[originalpckelly]

20. I'd say the latter two.

I'd say that the Speaker of the House is a part of the US government, last time I checked, so this act clearly does not apply to Mrs. Pelosi.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. Be interesting to get some one knowledgeable on this to comment more

- Foreign Policy belongs to the executive branch, is that the intent of the Logan Act?
- While Pelosi *may* be clear, surely people like Jesse Jackson have violated it in the past if the interpretation is correct?
- Has it ever been used/ruled on in the courts?
- Does it infringe on constitutional liberties?

[barb162]

34. I 'd like to hear a constitutional law professor opine on it

(I believe I have never heard of the Logan Act)

[POAS]

37. If evenly applied

the Logan act, as interpreted by the WSJ, would make many past and current Congress criters felons. Including all the Republics that went to Syria before Pelosi, the ones that travelled with her and the ones that went after she got there.

Members of Congress have been going on these "fact finding" junkets for many decades. They have been accorded meetings with heads of state for all that time. In many cases, it has been reported, that these junkets have been used for "back-channel" diplomacy efforts.

[WCGreen]

2. The last time I checked, the president isn't The United States....

[Kagemusha]

3. Ummm so is this the basis for ordering Jimmy Carter to stay away?

And does it apply to congresspeople on official congressional trips?

[marmar]

4. The WSJ's opinion page is run by a real collection of corporate fascists....

:wtf:

[IChing]

14. Yes, they did one on the two spys that were caught spying

for Israel and said the attack and charge against was a trumped up anti-Semitic attack.

[IChing]

15. This was a WSJ op piece

I will try to find the link, what was amazing was this is part of the defense being used when the trial starts in June.

[babylonsister]

5. Pathetic, isn't it. Grasping at straws? Here's Sparkly's thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3202737

[havocmom]

6. Did they say anything about the GOP Reps who went with her?

How about the ones who went a short time BEFORE she did?

Face it, the junta is pissed the lady and her associates (from BOTH sides of the aisle) decided it was important to get information that hadn't been through the filters and spin cycles of bushco. They know that to be effective, they need truth, not the lies cheney/bush wants them to believe.

[KAZ]

7. Tim McVeigh went after the wrong building.

Oops, that sounded very Coulterish. And I won't even get a million dollar book deal out of it.

[IWantAChange]

8. WSJ is THEE best bird cage liner around.....

[AX10]

9. Congressional delegations go over seas all the time.

This is nothing unusual or illegal.

[Xipe Totec]

11. So, now the Chimperor is "The Authority of The United States"

and nobody else is?

What happened to the three co-equal branches of government?

[HughMoran]

12. Just more right-wing horseshit from those pathetic whiners at the WSJ

This is truly bizarre - what is up with right-wingers these days?

Are they losing touch?

[Big Pappa]

13. This

is BS. I am so glad they are concentrating on the important issues.:sarcasm:

[Clark2008]

16. They honestly believe that the Speaker of the UNITED STATES

House of Representatives doesn't have the authority of, I don't know... the UNITED STATES?

These people are insane.

[Solo_in_MD]

24. Foreign Policy belongs to the executive branch may be the working theory

Not endorsing, just speculation.

[Clark2008]

42. You're probably correct in that's what they'd say.

But, considering how fucked up this administration's foreign policies have been, may be it's time to bring in the second string.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. WSJ Op-Eds are ALWAYS about as right wing as you can get

Whether they know it or not, they're outright fascists.

[madrchsod]

18. that really is funny......

[proud patriot]

19. Oh good grief Charlie Brown

:eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

21. Oh puhlease!!

:rofl:

[Oilwellian]

22. For Pete's sake....

they've lost their marbles.

[Lint Head]

25. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the United States ..

government and can got wherever the fuck she wants! She is not a private citizen. She is next in kine for the Presidency. The WSJ is a fish wrapper.:dem:

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. !!!

[IChing]

28. That Bullshit overload

is a lot of CO2, which is part of the problem of global warming
The WSJ

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. Some insights into the Logan Act... from a previous discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=592101&mesg_id=592277

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=592101&mesg_id=592263

[IChing]

35. Jobycom's thread nailed it

I remember cases about it in college.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=592101&mesg_id=592263

[magellan]

29. Interesting read on this from KO/Countdown

This is from Thursday night's Countdown (emphasis mine):

OLBERMANN: In the past five days, 11 members of Congress have met with the Syrian President Assad in three separate groups. Six were Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; five were Republicans. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN tonight, try to guess which of those 11 is being attacked by the administration as out of line, detrimental to U.S. diplomacy, and, of course, aiding the enemy? Cue the vice president, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, or reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He‘s done all kinds of things that are not in the interest of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq.

I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn‘t done it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Then there was Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner, honest enough to say outright what others only imply, that the problem is not the trip, but Pelosi. Quote, “it‘s one thing for other members to go, but you have to ask yourself, why is Pelosi going. She‘s going for one reason, and that is to embarrass the president.”

Lord knows, the president should the exclusive right to embarrass himself, damn it. In fact, Republican Congressman David Hobson accompanied Pelosi and said the speaker reinforced Bush administration policies and goals regarding Syria, pressing Assad on his support for militant groups, pushing for tighter control of the border with Iraq.

Of course, the administration‘s real sticking point being President Bush‘s insistence that diplomacy is not a method of achieving peace, but a reward for acquiescing to it on his terms, a viewpoint rejected not just by the Democrats, but also by those five Republicans also in talks with Assad this week.

Let‘s turn now to Ambassador Wendy Sherman, currently with the Albright Group, and former counselor of the Department of State, the Department of State which used to dabble in this whole diplomacy thing. Ambassador, great thanks for your time tonight.

AMB. WENDY SHERMAN, THE ALBRIGHT GROUP: Good to be with you Keith.

OLBERMANN: Technically, how unfamiliar this position might be for the White House, the law seems to be on its side in this case. Diplomacy, foreign policy are the purview of the executive branch, are they not?

SHERMAN: They are indeed the purview of the executive branch, but the United States Congress has an oversight function. They take it pretty seriously. I don‘t know any president who doesn‘t want complete and utter control over all foreign policy and diplomacy. And I don‘t know of any president who has had it.

OLBERMANN: And have not Congressmen, even Congresses, or most of them, ventured out on their own diplomatically in the past? Didn‘t Denny Hastert, in his pre-speaker days, try do this end run on President Clinton in Columbia?

SHERMAN: Absolutely. Then Congressman Hastert, soon to become speaker, tried to do negotiations on his own with the police in Columbia, about how to go after the drug dealers, and how to go after the guerrillas. There have been many other members who have done likewise. As you pointed out, many Republican members have gone to Syria, and that has not drawn any criticism.

OLBERMANN: Was Mr. Boehner‘s point that he had a problem with Speaker Pelosi personally, or was it more that they are worried that the trip by a speaker, by someone who is third in line that to the presidency, conveyed too much credibility upon Assad and the Syrian regime?

SHERMAN: Well there is truth to the fact that a speaker does convey more authority and credibility. But I think that‘s very important here. If the White House had been smart, they would have said Speaker Pelosi is going to go. We are glad she is going. She is going to deliver a tough message.

Her goals are our goals, as she herself has said. And although we believe it‘s not appropriate for the United States executive branch to be negotiating, though I think they are wrong on this score—not negotiating, but at least opening some channels—we think it‘s important for the speaker to deliver a tough message and know that whether you are a Democrat or Republican we are altogether in how we see Syria. Nobody has rose colored glasses. But they did not take the smart way out.

OLBERMANN: Exactly, why miss that opportunity? Even if you are angry at the speaker for doing this, you have all three delegations this week, Republican and Democratic. They stuck to the party line, the Bush party line, the U.S. government party line about Syria. Wouldn‘t it have helped the administration to show Assad, to show Syria that he cannot count on exploiting whatever the political divisions are between the two parties here?

SHERMAN: Absolutely. It would have sent a unified message, which is quite critical. It would have been someone with authority delivering that message, but not the executive branch, per se. It would have been a very good two step for the administration to have gone that route. And, in fact, in other situations, unlike what Congressman Boehner says, even the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in the last few days, said that in the right circumstances, she would have a bilateral meeting with the Iranians.

We now have direct conversation with the North Koreans. The president is supporting Governor Bill Richardson going to North Korea, even though we don‘t have diplomatic relations. So the world is pretty complex these days, and we need all the friends and all the help we can get.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17982206/

[MagickMuffin]

40. Now Add: Gingrich Thrust Himself Into Mideast Questions As Speaker, Bashed White House Policy

One politician who's been getting some airtime as a critic of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. A few days ago he hammered Pelosi for going abroad in defiance of the White House's wishes, saying that such defiance of the White House by Congressional leaders was "very dangerous."

But as Speaker himself in May of 1998, Gingrich aggressively inserted himself into American foreign policymaking abroad when he took a high-powered Congressional delegation to Israel. He openly denounced the White House's Middle East policies and made public comments in direct defiance of the White House. Right before his trip he even described then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as an "agent for the Palestinians."

In other words, despite the fact that the White House opposed her trip to Syria, Pelosi -- who claims she delivered the White House's message, unlike Gingrich -- has in many ways been more respectful of the White House than Gingrich was on his trip abroad. Yet CNN somehow can still ask without any irony whether Pelosi is on her way to becoming the "most controversial House Speaker yet."

more @ link

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/06/flashback_gingrich_visited_israel_as_speaker_blasted_presidents_foreign_policy

I think that would be one can of worms they best leave sealed.

[Patchuli]

30. Nancy Pelosi speaks for me!!!!

What, do they now imagine in their meglomania that what I think doesn't matter? I beg to f*&*ing differ! :spank:

[madeline_con]

31. "...an interference of individual citizens ..."

One problem. Pelosi is an elected offcial. DUH-bya is not.

[KingFlorez]

32. She is an elected official

They completely overlook that she is an elected official. They are never concerned with the law when it's actually being broken, but love to apply it to situations where it isn't being broken.

[grannylib]

33. Horsepucky, just like what's between Chimpy's ears. The reThugs and

their corporate masters just can't STAND it that someone in the Democratic party (and a WOMAN at that) is showing some leadership and intelligence and grace and poise and isn't totally cocking things up.

[Missy Vixen]

36. I think someone at the WSJ editorial board has a crush on PJF

>Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.<

Maybe the person at the WSJ who's warm for Mr. Fitzgerald's form should just pick up the phone and invite him to dinner already! Sheesh! They write about him every week, and this week, it's twice!

In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi showed more diplomacy on behalf of the USA than has been shown for the past six years.

Julie

[foo_bar]

38. they'd have to charge Issa too

The Vista Republican had another meeting with Assad yesterday, and the tone from the White House was far different. Whatever else Issa's trip may have accomplished, it seemed to take what little air was left out of the partisan rage over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Assad just a day earlier.

President Bush's sharp criticism of Pelosi for her visit left the White House little room to move when asked about Issa's travels.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush doesn't “think this is helpful.”
(...)
Issa has increasingly become a thorn in the administration's side. Recently, he has questioned the manner in which the Justice Department fired eight U.S. attorneys, including San Diego's Carol Lam, even though she had been a target of Issa's criticism.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070406-9999-1n6issa.html

[Liberal In Texas]

39. This is BS. She is a member of the government. She is the Speaker of the House and second in line

to the presidency.

This law was intended to keep people like H. Ross Perot from diddling with foreign policy.

This is neo-con babble talk. Just ask them who was talking to Assad the day after she was there...
Repubs.
Three of them.

[jimshoes]

41. Back at the end of President Carter's

term didn't the Reagan people actually work behind Carter's back to humiliate him regarding the release of the hostages? Could the Logan Act have applied back then too?

[laylah]

45. If my memory serves me

right (and at going on 56, THAT could be debatable :rofl:), Poppy Bush went to Iran and convinced them to delay the release of the hostages until Raygun was sworn in. I am confident if I am wrong, someone will point that out.

Jenn

[jimshoes]

46. I found this article by Robert Parry

regarding some secret meetings in Paris by Reagan people like Poppy himself (allegedly) and William Casey. FWIW

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile10.html

[cap]

43. along with the Republican senators who went with her?

and what about Newtie's Tete a Tete with the Isreaelis and Reagan's with the Iranians?

[Orsino]

44. Turner admits that Congress "authorized" the wars, but...

...wants us to believe that the Speaker of the House somehow acts "without the authority of the United States"? Clumsy, clumsy.