Did Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?
Did Nancy Pelosi break the law by talking to the Syrian dictatorship. According to a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security, the answer is yes.
Link
The relevant section of the Logan Act reads:
"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."
It's a dead letter law.
Every day, businessmen and also politicians from the US try to influence the policies of foreign countries to advance their interests without regard to stated US policy. Even the act of tranferring money across borders has this effect. Since 1799, it has been cited only ten times in the entire Federal court record and applied only once. Furthermore, Pelosi is a part of the government. The Constitution placed in the hands of Congress power that is currently exercised as in the power of the purse and power that is no longer exercised as in the power to declare war-- something that Congress hasn't done since 1941. Every year, congressmen fan out across the globe on "fact-finding" junkets to influence policy that servers their interests of their constitutents.
In the case of Pelosi, her presence in Syria coincided with the release of the British sailors in Iran, to which Syria ascribes some credit. Who is to say that behind the scenes the American delegation didn't in some measure shape this outcome? The fact is that the United States seems to look on engagement as some kind of a reward for our enemies, such as Iran and Syria. It seems to me, that this is a mistake, as events and conditions can be shaped by first of all connecting with those who are our enemies. This self-imposed unwillingeess to talk most significantly caused North Korea to develop nuclear weaponry.
Is there anyone to whom we shouldn't engage? For example, should the US break bread with Bin Laden? My answer is: we should even talk with to Bin Laden. The assumption is that the mere act of talking somehow is appeasement. It is only appeasement if we appease, and sometimes the absence of talking is an act of appeasement. We should be willing to interact even with a terrorist with the blood of Americans on his hands. This can only benefit us, as through interacting with him or his colleagues, we discern aims, tactics, and weaknesses. The only caveat is that such engagement should be done at the appropriate governmental level. In the case of stateless terrorists, a CIA operative will suffice. In the case of leaders of foreign countries, we should be prepared as Nixon did with Mao and Breshnev to engage at the highest levels.
History has answered the pragmatic question: does talking with our enemies work? The answer is: sometimes. The question now becomes: why won't Bush talk to our enemy leaders? My hypnothesis is that it is policy that springs from his character, that at the core, Bush and Cheney are both cowards, despite the big words and swagger. If they are unwilling to talk in unvetted audiences made up of Americans, I would have no expectation that they could prevail against Chavez, Castro, or Ahmadinejad.
Link
The relevant section of the Logan Act reads:
"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."
It's a dead letter law.
Every day, businessmen and also politicians from the US try to influence the policies of foreign countries to advance their interests without regard to stated US policy. Even the act of tranferring money across borders has this effect. Since 1799, it has been cited only ten times in the entire Federal court record and applied only once. Furthermore, Pelosi is a part of the government. The Constitution placed in the hands of Congress power that is currently exercised as in the power of the purse and power that is no longer exercised as in the power to declare war-- something that Congress hasn't done since 1941. Every year, congressmen fan out across the globe on "fact-finding" junkets to influence policy that servers their interests of their constitutents.
In the case of Pelosi, her presence in Syria coincided with the release of the British sailors in Iran, to which Syria ascribes some credit. Who is to say that behind the scenes the American delegation didn't in some measure shape this outcome? The fact is that the United States seems to look on engagement as some kind of a reward for our enemies, such as Iran and Syria. It seems to me, that this is a mistake, as events and conditions can be shaped by first of all connecting with those who are our enemies. This self-imposed unwillingeess to talk most significantly caused North Korea to develop nuclear weaponry.
Is there anyone to whom we shouldn't engage? For example, should the US break bread with Bin Laden? My answer is: we should even talk with to Bin Laden. The assumption is that the mere act of talking somehow is appeasement. It is only appeasement if we appease, and sometimes the absence of talking is an act of appeasement. We should be willing to interact even with a terrorist with the blood of Americans on his hands. This can only benefit us, as through interacting with him or his colleagues, we discern aims, tactics, and weaknesses. The only caveat is that such engagement should be done at the appropriate governmental level. In the case of stateless terrorists, a CIA operative will suffice. In the case of leaders of foreign countries, we should be prepared as Nixon did with Mao and Breshnev to engage at the highest levels.
History has answered the pragmatic question: does talking with our enemies work? The answer is: sometimes. The question now becomes: why won't Bush talk to our enemy leaders? My hypnothesis is that it is policy that springs from his character, that at the core, Bush and Cheney are both cowards, despite the big words and swagger. If they are unwilling to talk in unvetted audiences made up of Americans, I would have no expectation that they could prevail against Chavez, Castro, or Ahmadinejad.
posted by My Mall and News at
7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home