Pelosi Trip to Syria Violates the Logan Act?

This is for all of you that have praising Pelosi for her actions and/or saying that they don't understand why what she did was wrong. Pelosi may have committed a felony on her trip to Syria by violating the Logan Act:

Logan Act

Text of the 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.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

The above paragraph makes it clear to me that Pelosi has committed a felony and therefore must resign her post as Speaker of the House, as well as her house seat immediately to face prosecution for her crime.

that's alright, she looks good in stripes.

And add this, quoted from Robert F. Turner's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required for online access):

Meanwhile, that headscarf that Pelosi put on to show her second-class status as a woman and as a dhimmi (second-class citizen in a militant Islamic country) is very appropriate, and we think she should continue to wear it in Congress. It shows her acceptance of the demeaning status of a kafir female (worth one-quarter of a Muslim male under Saudi Arabian blood money compensation tables). The Speaker of the House has not only allegedly violated the Logan Act by conducting diplomacy with a hostile foreign power, she has engaged in behavior far more suitable for female Islamic property or for a slave than for a free American.

Pelosi's behaviour turns out to be illegal and disgraceful.

Having the executive arrest the Speaker of the House would probably be countered by the House impeaching the President, leading to some of the most turbulent Constitutional crises we could ever imagine.

I think it's clear she's done enough to embarrass herself for now. I think all lawmakers should look at this as a learning opportunity to realize why the founding fathers put the President in charge of foreign relations instead of all 535 of them. If this sort of stuff continues though, maybe this law needs to be looked at more carefully.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by djohnsto77]

I must respectfully disagree.

Just being embarrassed isn't good enough.

Pelosi should be forced to resign her leadership positions in the House and then hounded out of office just like some Republicans have been for their lesser "transgressions".

[edit on 4/8/2007 by centurion1211]

that's quite the hardline approach. why is bush still in office? maybe that punk should be booted out of the oval office like monica lewinsky before the big meeting. he lied his backside off and deservedly should be impeached for a plethora of reasons. if he's not getting the boot, nor shall Pelosi. i suggest you take a softer approach unless you want to be mistaken for an ancient Roman dictator as your avatar suggests.

Your right, how dare she

Congress is an independent and coequal branch of our government. Its members can go anywhere they wish to go, and that includes the current House speaker, Pelosi.

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held talks with Syria's president Wednesday despite White House objections, saying she pressed Bashar al-Assad over Syrian support for militant groups and passed him a peace message from Israel's prime minister.

what part of that is

in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States

t any rate, Speaker Pelosi is as committed to the Israeli lobby as the president, so her visit changed nothing in policy matters.

Seems to me she wasnt wealing and dealing with the US government.
she was hadning a peace letter from Israel to syria, while pushing on terrorist backing from syria.

what part of that is

in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States

Unless Israel's enforcement in the ME is a core topic within the whitehouse, I think she has EVERY right to be over there.

President Bush decided to ignore them, when speaking to these countries is the KEY to solving the ME Crisis.
Ignoring them, is only going to enflame the situation.

Furthermore, as many Americans more experienced in foreign policy than the president have advised, the U.S. should be engaged with Syria. Its location between Iraq and Lebanon and its relative power make it a player in the region that cannot be ignored.

But I love the way your prepared to lynch her, yet say all republican lynchings are

lesser "transgressions".

Funny, If my president lied, decieved and led my country into an illegial war, to beenfit his corporate buddies.. id accuse him of high treason... not lesser transgressions.

So essentially this section declares that if you disagree with the US government, you aren't allowed to let any other government know about your disagreement?

Why? So the FBI can silence you easily without outside intervention?

Sounds like a bull**** part of law to me. One worthy of immediate ammendment.

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
that's quite the hardline approach.

No, it's a request for a level playing field. This has nothing to do with Bush.

Ever hear of Gonzalez? Or Trent Lott? I could go on and on with the list of Republicans that demos have taken "quite the hardline approach" on. Pelosi deserves exactly the same treatment.

Originally posted by johnsky
So essentially this section declares that if you disagree with the US government, you aren't allowed to let any other government know about your disagreement?

No. It states that you aren't allowed to negotiate with foreign countries as if you are the U.S. government - which one member of congress (Pelosi) is not. However, that is exactly what Pelosi was doing over there.

Plus, you all want to talk about liars. What about Pelosi lying to the syrians about her meetings with the Israelis? If lying is wrong for one side, it is wrong for all sides.

Sounds like a bull**** part of law to me.

Even if so, Pelosi has sworn in her oath of office to uphold the laws, not flount them.

Seems dems are being caught (as usual) defending the indefensible.

[edit on 4/9/2007 by centurion1211]

More hypocrisy from you sir. Double standard. Why did you ignore this....




thinkprogress.org...


Does your criticism extend to Republicans, or are they some how exempt?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Pelosi's behaviour turns out to be illegal and disgraceful.

Excellent find! I think this calls for some hearings on this matter. PUBLIC hearings. Wonder if she'd show up wearing that stuuuuuuuuuuupid head scarf like she wore over there? She's suck a flake.

Well this all shows how one branch of the government takes care of the rest regarding which one is doing the ill policies while braking the laws that came after our founding fathers established our system of government.

Well I say Who is going to arrest Pelosi ?

And if she resign for exercising bad policies then I suggest that we should ask our own elected president resign first.

See how politics stink.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by marg6043]

Hah.. this hypocrisy reminds me of more hypocrisy

December 4, 1997: Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President Bush Jr. is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract."

source1
source2

Early 1998: Bill Richardson, the US Ambassador to the UN, meets Taliban officials in Kabul (all such meetings are technically illegal, because the US still officially recognizes the government the Taliban ousted as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan). US officials at the time call the pipeline project a "fabulous opportunity" and are especially motivated by the "prospect of circumventing Iran, which offered another route for the pipeline."

www.wanttoknow.info...

republican.. democrat
Both sides make me equally sick.

And what whaa said:
Does your criticism extend to Republicans,
or are they some how exempt?

Originally posted by whaaa
Does your criticism extend to Republicans, or are they some how exempt?

Pelosi’s group was highly publicized whereas the three republicans’ prior vist barely made a headline. Naturally Pelosi’s visit would get more attention from the administration and the White House would need to publicly and clearly show she has no support from the administration and she is not operating in any official capacity.

There is also a contrast between the two different visits. First, there is a “rank and file” issue as to the level of contact (Pelosi third in line to the presidency) and the other is noted by the comments from Pitts and Aderholt concerning their earlier vist:

"We made it very clear in our meetings that we were the same (political) party of the president and we support the administration," Pitts said.
"Speaker Pelosi was coming as the opposition leader … I doubt if the Speaker would say the same thing (to Assad) as we did."
Source

The two different visiting parties were the proverbial “apples and oranges” although neither sanctioned by the White House.

That said, no one has been ever tried for actions against the Logan Act, especially members of congress. There are plenty of historical acts (far worse than Pelosi’s political stunt) by congressional parties which would appear to have violated the act as well as multiple private citizens.


mg

Yep, you are 100% correct.

Nancy broke the Logan act.

Members of the Congress or the Senate can not perform or act as represenatives of the White House unless asked to do so by the President or the Sec of State.

Her little trip to the Middle East was not approved by the White House and she was warned last week by the White House not to act as a offical from the US.

Will she get prison time, no.

My bet is that she will be asked to step down in the next month or the GOP will drag this out during the next election cycle and damage the Democratic chance at the oval office.

So Nancy must Go!

Originally posted by SIRR1

Will she get prison time, no.

So Nancy must Go!

And I wish that it becomes true, because then the real game of wills, will start first with the call for bush impeachment.

So as you see this may get real good in the white house.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by marg6043]

The situation may not be so clear-cut:

U.S. State Department briefed House leader on Syria before she went there, spokesman says.

The Bush administration briefed Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria while publicly criticizing her decision to go there, the US State Department said Monday.

In disclosing pretrip briefing, department spokesman Sean McCormack said it did not represent an endorsement of the visit by the speaker of the House of Representatives.

Source

Additionally:

But beyond this, Speaker Pelosi is the second person in line of succession to be President, just behind our ... Vice President, Dick Cheney, and is not covered by the Logan Act.

Serving members of Congress are not subject to the Logan Act, but once their terms expire, they may be.

Source

I'm no big fan of Speaker Pelosi, but these claims seem a bit over the edge to me.

Look, everyone understands that the dems want to investigate everything and everyone in the current administration in hopes of finding something they can use to bring the president down. They will call always deny and call it something else, but every thinking person understands that that is the dems true goal.

That said, if the dems are, for example, now screaming for an investigation into Bush's (legally and constitutionally allowed) recess appointment of the ambassador to Belgium, why not turn the same searchlight on Pelosi for what do not appear to be legal acts?

Originally posted by whaaa
More hypocrisy from you sir. Double standard. Why did you ignore this....




thinkprogress.org...


Does your criticism extend to Republicans, or are they some how exempt?

There is an easily understood difference between going on a fact finding mission (Republicans) and meeing with heads of state to conduct foreign policy(Pelosi). Few know exactly what was discussed, but does anyone think Pelosi wasn't telling the syrians to hang in there until the dems are in the White House because they'll do things differently?

And while you're looking for hypocrites, does your criticism ever extend to dems as well as Republicans?


[edit on 4/9/2007 by centurion1211]