Pelosi has committed a felony, violated the Logan Act

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
From the Wall Street Journal:

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.

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 flout 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.


Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Hey Joey (disgusting avatar), who's abusing power here? You are *owned*
 
Lantos, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the criticism from President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials and allies is particularly out of line because Republican House members also met Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus just before and after the delegation led by the Democratic speaker.

"The notion that members visiting Syria and having discussions (is) a unique Democratic strategy to undermine the Republican administration is absurd on it face,'' Lantos said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle from Lisbon, Portugal.

"There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said from the president's ranch in Texas, where Bush is vacationing. "On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences."

Yet the White House had no criticism of the trip to Syria by three Republican House members before Pelosi's delegation arrived there this week nor of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), who visited Syria after Pelosi, Lantos and their colleagues had left. Pelosi's group included Republican Rep. David Hobson of Ohio and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the House.

I think he said it rather eloquently. Not much to add. Except that I love my Avatar. Isnt the first amendment great?
 
Unfortunately, we know nothing will come of her breaking the law...


If she did, dont you think Bush would have the justice department all over her? She would be cuffed at the airport.
 
Issa's Syria visit meets with Bush's disapproval

GOP lawmaker's trip in 2003 was praised

By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
April 6, 2007

WASHINGTON – Three years ago this month, the Bush administration was coordinating with Rep. Darrell Issa about a meeting he planned with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

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.”

“The administration's position on members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, is very clear: We do not think it's productive; we do not think it is useful,” Johndroe said. “As we have said for some time now, well before the most high-level visits that have taken place to Damascus – we just don't think this is helpful. The Syrians still don't change their behavior, and this only makes them feel validated.”
More...

So why is Pelosi's visit characterized as so terrible? WSM calls for her prosecution, the various White House officials were not much kinder - but for Republicans that go over there - Bush doesn't “think this is helpful.”

Some pundits on the right have taken up the position, even calling for her arrest. They don't mention the three Republican representatives that also visited during the same week. Or if they do mention it, they say that because she is House Speaker that she is somehow in a different category.

Exactly. I've said it before. The country is growing tired of cowboy diplomacy and of the right wing hardline stance. Republican lawmakers no longer seem to be lock stepping to the tune of GW's edicts and are going they're own way, more moderate.

2008 is looking better and better.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top