International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter
Source:
abcnews.go.com
URL Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-g ... -iran-letter/story?id=29528727
Published: Mar 10, 2015
Author: TERRY MORAN
Post Date: 2015-03-10 12:11:23 by Pericles
Keywords: Iran
Views: 6032
Comments: 34
Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter Mar 10, 2015, 11:58 AM ET ANALYSIS by TERRY MORAN Some law professors and liberal commentators say they believe the “open letter” Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 of his Republican colleagues sent this week to the leaders of Iran, warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Obama won’t last after Obama leaves office, might be a crime. That letter from the Arkansas Republican to the ayatollahs and other Iranian officials, critics say, is a violation of the 1799 Logan Act, which says starkly: “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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#8. To: Pericles, A K A Stone (#0)
Then Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, Al Sharpton, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and quite a few others are doomed as well. "Without authority of the United States" is what was cited by Nancy Pelosi as she deemed as a US HR representative she had authority to 'make talk' with Syria back in 2007.
Wasn't it something like 140+ congresscritters that flew over there with staffers on 2-3 airliners? Beyond undermining Bush's authority to conduct foreign policy (and doing so overseas, normally verboten), Pelosi tried to lie about her reasons for being in Syria, as a messenger for Israel. As her tissue of lies disintegrated, she and her airliners of dupe congresscritters (the entire CBC was onboard along with Kucinich and the hard Lefty types), she got tired of groveling in her mini-burqa for Assad (who kinda tried to avoid her for 3 days) and came home. Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16 HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said. Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda. Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. At any rate, there was considerable mention of the Logan Act in 2007, the first time many of us had heard much about it since both parties had always observed the rule that "disagreements stop at the water's edge" meaning no badmouthing the prez or talking foreign policy overseas or trying to conduct private diplomacy unless acting directly on a president's request. This happened when the Stain and Lady Lindsey were dispatched by Obama to Egypt to try to keep Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in power which was given a very cold reception in Cairo. Apparently Stain & his Lady were considered more likely to get an audience with the military than Hitlery or Pentagon/DoD. At the time, it was reported that Egypt wouldn't answer the phone if the Pentagon called them and that the WH was quite upset. This is when we lost Egypt entirely as a client state. We gave them $1-$2 billion in aid per year and the Saudis bought them out with a pledge of $15 billion which they started to promptly deliver on, alleviating Egypt's economic crisis and keeping the government afloat. And they didn't need Uncle Sam any more. To this day, we have not really re-established relations with Egypt. IOW, the steady strong relationship with Egypt that has persisted since the Carter era and the Camp David Accords that he brokered between Israel and Egypt is shattered. Egypt is no longer our client, our friend. And yet, you hear nothing in the press about "Who lost Egypt?". Because Obola is the press's president and they aren't going to pay any attention to the extensive damage being done by such incompetent bungling in foreign policy while both Hitlery and Lurch served as secretaries of state.
Treason is one of those amorphous crimes, like "conspiracy" or "malingering", or "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline". The very last thing we need to do is to dust off treason law and start using it to try to tame political opponents. Why? Because Treason is the holy grail of thought crimes: it allows the DEATH PENALTY. The Right is the minority. They are weaker, less organized and divided. Try to wield "Treason" as a sort of "Ring of Power" to behead the Left, and what will surely result is a bloody jujitsu. Consider the Nuclear Option. The Democrats used it (or a procedural variant of it) to end the filibuster and pack the Appellate Courts with judges. But it was the Republicans, back in W's day, who drew that weapon from its sheath, THREATENING to do it, but then dividing and backing down. In the sturm und drang over that, the Gang of Eight came forward to stop it, but in the meantime, the Left steeled itself to face the reversal and the onslaught, and listened to the arguments. Then, when they wanted to put THEIR judges on the court, they just invoked it. No threats, no taunts - BOOM - naked power, and the Right folded because they felt too weak to fight. So, the Right postured with it, and got nothing, but the Left used the weapon which the Right had conditioned the country to be prepared for. If men of the Right want to die as condemned traitors someday, the best way to go about it is to try to prod the sleeping dog of treason law to its feet. The legal minds of the Right are weaker than those on the Left, and Righties are more cowardly. Unsheath the sword of treason and the threat of death, and the Left will win that fight, and the Right will end up being put to death. And they will deserve it too, because they made the threat first. It is the most bumbling form of suicidal stupidity to start to think about eliminating one's political opposition by killing them using treason law. It won't work. Ever. But if it ever is unsheathed, the Left will body slam the Right, take that weapon, and ram it up the Right's ass like a red hot poker. Want to die? Then start threatening to kill people as traitors. The Reign of Terror lasted for about 18 Months. At the end of it, Robespierre and the rest of its leaders were all marched to the guillotine and had their heads chopped off. And they deserved it. Start trying to execute your political opposition, draw THAT sword and gun, and you will die, and you will deserve it. The United States is not at war. Therefore, there is no enemy. Therefore, treason is impossible. Espionage? Yes. Official secrets broken? Sure. Those things can be prosecuted. That game can be played, but if there is no declared war, there is no "enemy", and if there is no enemy, formal, legalistically speaking, then treason is IMPOSSIBLE. For treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". No enemy, no treason. No war, no enemy. Does my analysis frustrate you? Pull back and cool down. I AM TRYING TO GIVE RIGHT WINGERS A WAY OUT OF THE FEVER SWAMP OF DEATH INTO WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGED. Treason is going to be laughed at and ignored. But GOD HELP the Right if it ever gets traction, because a lot of Right wingers will die in the jujitsu that results. Given the "logic" that has gotten this raised, SOMETHING needs to be able to give the Righties a fig leaf to cover themselves, a reason to come in off this particular ledge. No declared war, no enemy is the WAY to back out of this death trap keeping one's dignity intact, AND it allows the anti-militarist crowd a nice perch on which to gain purchase in this debate. So instead of the usual despising what I have to say because it's me saying it, THINK about what I am saying and why. Treason is going to end up a laughingstock charge. But God help the Right if it ever gains traction.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
Exactly. People on the Left and Right constantly toss the word 'treason' around blithely on any occasion. The classic treason case is Benedict Arnold. A modern example was the Rosenburgs. Treason under American law requires elements of active collaboration with a hostile and credible enemy of America and its interests. In no way can some letter signed by a minority of senators meet that standard. The Founders were extremely wary of allowing any repeats of the shameful treason trials routinely conducted in the various Great Power monarchies of Europe, often conducted just to loot the wealth of powerful nobles who had crossed the king or challenged his conduct or policies.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“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.”
#23. To: redleghunter (#8)
"Without authority of the United States" is what was cited by Nancy Pelosi as she deemed as a US HR representative she had authority to 'make talk' with Syria back in 2007.
I was wondering if anyone else still recalled it. 
Nancy Pelosi in her mini-burkha, 2007
But now a 2015 letter from some senators, not even a non-binding and meaningless motion voted on in the Senate, from less than half of the U.S. Senate, is treason? Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
Replies to Comment # 24. The United States is not at war. Therefore, there is no enemy. Therefore, treason is impossible.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]