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: 6551
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 # 27.
#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.
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. Yes, I remember. I was in Iraq at the time:) Good run down, history account and commentary to boot. Did you have an extra cup of Joe today?:)
#28. To: redleghunter (#27)
Low hanging fruit. Many of us recall these events, even if the national media has been stricken with such amnesia on the history of the Xlintons? Libmedia: "Bill and Hillary who? Never heard of 'em, know nothing about these people."
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
#27. To: TooConservative (#23)
I was wondering if anyone else still recalled it.
Replies to Comment # 27.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]