I noticed a lot of folks visiting here looking for some background and history on the Logan Act, so pulling a link forward from a post last year to make it easier to find. This is from a CRS Report for Congress:
Conducting Foreign Relations without Authority: The Logan Act
By the way, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. This is an Executive Branch vs Legislative Branch issue. As my original posting on the subject indicated, members of Congress from both Parties have been violating and ignoring federal law with unmitigated arrogance: A One Play Act. Pelosi’s trip to visit a head of state who is a known sponsor of terrorists and has American blood on his hands is the most recent and potentially most harmful example of a Congress that believes it has the authority to ignore laws and behave as if we have dozens of mini-presidents who can run around and make foreign policy.
Pelosi, D-Calif., met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus this week against Bush’s wishes.
“Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
“The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip,” she said. “It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive.”
Yes Nancy, that is very funny. And yet, wasn’t the state intent of your trip to actually show Syria and the Mid-East that not everyone in the US agrees with the foreign policy positions of the US?
More folks are starting to come to the conclusion that Pelosi has crossed a very important line. USA Today, in an editorial, points out that, although they disagree with Bush’s policy towards Syria:
House Speaker Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria…
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker – third in the succession line to the presidency – her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos D-Calif., who said the meeting was “only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit.” That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy.
Pelosi’s office defended her trip by noting that the “administration’s cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence.” As true as that is, the place for Pelosi to make the case is not in Damascus. It’s not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad.
So out of one side of her mouth, Pelosi was showing Syria that “there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive”, while out of the other side of her mouth we hear that Pelosi’ visit was necessary because Bush’s “cold should approach” was not working. Which is it Nancy? The trip was in support of or in spite of official US foreign policy?
On Taylor Marsh’s blog, (which is becoming one of my favorite places to visit to see just how far some folks will go to bend the truth and look the other way when Pelosi and Reid break laws and misbehave, all because of a common hatred of George Bush), we can see clearly how much the Left must twist reality to continue to convince themselves that they are right. First we have this statement on the blog itself:
He (Bush) was just afraid the speaker might get something done. It looks like she did, because she opened a dialogue and brought a message of peace from Mr. Olmert to Bashar Assad, something Mr. Bush and Condi the incompetent haven’t come close to doing.
OK, so clearly that was a diplomatic act in the area of US foreign policy. Violation of the Logan Act? Not according to Marsh. Here is an exchange in the comment section between Taylor Marsh and Think’bout Stuff (aka me):
Thinkin’: Interesting take on the situation. So, as long as we agree that what Pelosi and the Republicans who are visiting Syria are saying, the fact that they may be in violation of the Logan Act is irrelevant? Oh, and Zandar, before you go calling me names, try comprehending what was written, including the Logan Act itself. The fact is that, whether you happen to like it or not, George Bush is the president and Pelosi and Reid are trying to act as if the mid-term election was an overthrow of the government. Pelosi is in violation of the Logan Act, however the Act has almost never been enforced and likely won’t be this time either. I made the same point when a delegation of Republicans and Democrats visited Cuba. The advantage I have is that I do not belong to any political party and present my own thoughts, not some kool-aid induced drivel. Some day I may return to the Democrat Party, but not until the lunatics stop running the Party. But thanks for stopping by my site …
Taylor Marsh: The Logan Act?
You have got to be kidding me. Unfortunately, I know you’re not.
The LA hinges on negotiating with foreign governments, not simply talking with them. Even Cheney calls Pelosi’s trip “a visit.”
The wingnut cries on Pelosi’s “visit” are desperate acts to try and save the Republican Party’s pathetic reputation on foreign policy, because the Democrats are leading.
Give. It. Up.
Thinkin’: Hmmm. Interesting. So if Pelosi is just visiting, then I guess there is no violation of the Logan Act. Of course, that would seem to contradict the statements about all of the wonderful things she is apparently accomplishing with this little chat.
On the other hand, if she is negotiating, attempting to influence, acting counter to the official policy of the United States towards Syria, even if she is doing “the right thing”, she is violating the law.
So.. is it a nice little visit and chat with no real substance that does not really merit the praise being thrown about, or is it a step in the right direction to counter the failed policies of the Bush administration? Your call.
Not saying anyone will EVER enforce it, since to my knowledge it has only been used once to bring an indictment, but making believe Pelosi did not violate the law here is disingenuous.
No response as of yet. Either she grew bored with the discussion or had no answer. But whether bored or not, far left liberals are in an awkward position. On the one hand, they are loving the muscle flexing by Pelosi and the slap in the face she is giving to Bush; on the other hand, they are stuck with the weakest defense possible for breaking the law: because (in their opinion) it was the right thing to do.
Truly fascinating that this is a monumental diplomatic mission that significantly forwards the cause of peace that could not be accomplished by an incompetent president and his Secretary of State until we realize that would be a violation of federal law, then it’s just a friendly visit and a chat over tea between the 3rd in line of succession to the president of the US and a sponsor of terrorism. Seems to me like either one of these spins reflects poorly on Pelosi.
But have no fear my liberal friends, no one appears to have the guts to enforce the law.
Update Already: Wake Up America has the quote I was looking for and weighs in on the issue. The quote:
Tom Lantos chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee: “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”
Exactly… which points to this trip being a clear violation of the Logan Act.
|
|
|
|
[“Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said ] This indicates that she in her own words gave a message to a foreign government. I do not know who gave her the authorization to give this message.