Talk:Logan Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pelosi

See also: Talk:Nancy_Pelosi § Logan_Act

I've removed the bit about Pelosi's trip to Syria until consensus can be reached on what is appropriate to include here. With regard to the recent additions by Pudgenet:

• Pelosi did not go to Syria to implement her own version of foreign policy, and the source you cited (the Washington Post article) does not say that she did. What the article does say is that Bush was personally informed by Pelosi of the trip and did not object. So a better question for us is, why does the Logan Act article even mention Pelosi when Bush himself knew ahead of time and did not object?

• No, you're wrong. She said she went because of the ISG recommendations, but those recommendations can only be properly implemented by the Executive Branch. This could not be more clear. She went to push foreign policy in opposition to U.S. foreign policy. And while Bush did not object at the time, that was almost two weeks ago, and the White House did announce it objected to the trip in the following days, as has been clear in many stories since (this story was March 31, after all). Pudge 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article that you cited also points out that Bush's spokeswoman, Dana Perino, did not criticize the trips to Syria by the Republican congressmen, while she did throw barbs at Pelosi for her trip. Strangely, you then proceeded to remove the sentence that pointed out this fact. It is irresponsible not to point out the biases of Pelosi's critics if you insist on including the supposed "controversy" over Pelosi's trip in the Logan Act article. Dce7 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I did remove that, because it is irrelevant, as there is no evidence the Republicans went to implement foreign policy, as Pelosi, by her own admission, was doing. The key -- as shown in the quote from State in '75 ("The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments") -- is not whether you go to a foreign country against the wishes of the Executive (which is all the Republicans did), but what you do there. There is no evidence the Republicans intended to so intervene, or did so; there is strong evidence (her own statement) that Pelosi did intend to so intervene. Focusing on the fact of going to a foreign country against the Executive's wishes entirely misses the point. Pudge 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She didn't go to "implement" the recommendations. She does not have the power to do so and did not do so, and you have no evidence that she did. She went to Syria in accordance with the general recommendation that the U.S. meet with Syria rather than ignoring them as the Bush administration has done. That does not mean she is trying to unilaterally create a new American policy towards Syria by going around the president. You say that "focusing on the fact of going to a foreign country against the executive's wishes entirely misses the point" — but you can't point to anything Pelosi did except for the fact that she went to Syria at all. And her trip was okayed by Bush (even though he obviously would have preferred that she not go) and the State Department ahead of time. The criticism from the White House has never been a statement that Pelosi went to Syria illegally or was not allowed to go — they just don't like the idea of American politicians meeting with the Syrian government. Dce7 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You try to twist the ISG recommendations into a "general recommendation" to meet with Syria, but that is not what the ISG said. It was not at all a general recommendation, but very specific foreign policy recommendations for how to proceed, recommendations that can only be implemented by the Executive. They were expressed in five different recommendations, that I have been able to find.

• The first was to form an "Iraq International Support Group" that would include Iraq and all its border nations, which would include Syria. This was recommendation 5. Pelosi cannot do this without going against U.S. foreign policy.
• The second was recommendation 9, which said the U.S., under the aegis of the aforementioned Support Group and New Diplomatic Offensive, should directly engage Syria. Pelosi cannot do this without going against U.S. foreign policy.
• The third was recommendaton 12, which said that the U.S. ans Support Group should encourage Syria to cooperate in various ways, such as controlling its borders, establish communiaction with Iraqis, increase cooperation with Iraq. Pelosi cannot do this without going against U.S. foreign policy.
• The fourth and fifth were recommendations 14 and 15, which were about direct meetings involving Syria to achieve Arab-Israeli peace. Pelosi cannot do this without going against U.S. foreign policy.

This is what Pelosi said, by referencing the recommendations of ISG report as her purpose in going, that her goal in going to Syria was: doing one or more things she is not allowed to do. That she does not have the power to do them is beside the point, because that is what she said she was doing, and if she attempted to do what she said, she likely violated the law. You're right that we don't know what she did, but that is why I only posted what she SAID she was going to do, which is in apparent violation of the Logan Act.

Further, you need to stop saying the falsehood that her trip was approved of by anyone in the Executive branch. It's not true. They did not stop her, but they did not approve of it, either. And that the Bush administration did not say her trip was illegal does not mean that it wasn't. Pudge 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, those are the recommendations. But there is no evidence that Pelosi was attempting to implement directly the specific recommendations of the ISG. And she wasn't. She was at most just talking about them with Syria. There is a difference. Here is Pelosi's statement from Syria:

She said that despite differences over whether to talk with Syria, "there is absolutely no division between this delegation and the president of the United States on the issues of concern." (from the Washington Post [1]). In my experience Pelosi is not one to be shy about pointing out the differences between her and the president, but here she took care to emphasize the lack of differences except on the point of meeting with Syria at all. I reiterate that what is supposedly "controversial" about this trip is not what she said but the simple fact that she went to Syria. You accuse me of twisting the ISG recommendations, but I think you are twisting Pelosi's statement about going to Syria in accordance with ISG recommendations into a statement of actually trying to implement those recommendations unilaterally through negotations with Syria. There's no evidence of that and quoting the ISG recommendations won't prove it.

Second, I am saying that the Bush administration approved her trip, not "approved of" it, as you said. Again, there is a difference.

Furthermore, as I suggested at the top of this section, if the Bush administration has not said her trip was illegal, why is this stuff in the article? Just because of one editorial from the WSJ? At least with the previous instances cited in the article (and in the CRS report they were taken from), such as Sen. McGovern's trip to Cuba, the president at the time accused them of potential Logan violations. Of course you are entitled to believe that she broke the law, but that doesn't mean the article should suggest that she did. Dce7 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"there is no evidence that Pelosi was attempting to implement directly the specific recommendations of the ISG" ... apart from her word that she was going there because of those recommendations, you mean, right? I know of no additional evidence, but the evidence that exists points to intent, surely enough to conduct a formal investigation into what she actually did.

"And she wasn't" ... um, you were the one who rightly told me that I don't know what she actually did over there. You do not know what she actually did over there, either. This is your opinion, not a fact.

"I think you are twisting Pelosi's statement about going to Syria in accordance with ISG recommendations into a statement of actually trying to implement those recommendations unilaterally through negotations with Syria" ... that makes no sense to me. She said she was going there "as recommended by the Iraq Study Group." But the ISG only recommended going there specifically in the context of foreign policy decisions that must come from the Executive Branch. I can see no possible way to take what she said and NOT have it mean she intends to overstep her authority as a legislator, unless you want to say she didn't actually mean it, which I concede is a possibility. Of course, if the press were worth a damn, they necessarily would have asked "which recommendations are you referring to?"

"I am saying that the Bush administration approved her trip" ... I have seen no evidence of this. As best I can tell, her trip needed, and received, no approval from the Bush administration. Again, that they offered her help does not imply approval. If a young man tells his parents he is going to join the Army, they may disapprove, and still provide him with assistance. Part of the job of the State Department is to aid Americans overseas, especially people like the Speaker. They cannot prevent her from going, and offering her assistance is a separate function. Further, even if they did approve her trip, that would be entirely beside the point, since they could approve her trip while still disapproving of what she said she planned to do there.

"if the Bush administration has not said her trip was illegal, why is this stuff in the article?" ... why do you think that is a requirement for inclusion? It's not. That said, I am not necessarily opposed to it NOT being included, until something official is made of it; and in general, I prefer Wikipedia not include events that are ongoing anyway, since so much is gotten wrong in the process. I did not add her name to the article, I only attempted to clarify what apparently makes what she did different from the Republicans that also went, because the article wrongly implied that they were equivalent in re Logan Act implications. For that matter, I also think the Logan Act itself is, when applied to legislators, total B.S., and that this matter should be handled politically, not criminally. But my opinion is not relevant to the article. :-) Pudge 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"I know of no additional evidence, but the evidence that exists points to intent, surely enough to conduct a formal investigation into what she actually did." That's fine, but there hasn't been one and (my guess) there probably won't be. All I'm saying is (and apparently you agree) that there's no direct evidence that she went to the Syrians and said, "Hey... wanna start helping the Iraqis stabilize their country?" or something along those lines that would clearly be an attempt to conduct foreign policy independently. I also don't agree with your interpretation of her intent but we've been over that.

I think you're still using the word "approved" to mean "approved of." By "approved" all I mean is that the administration (incl. the State Department) said, okay, you can go and we will support you if needed.

I don't think that an accusation from Bush is a requirement for inclusion. I think it would be sufficient for inclusion. In the context of the events currently described in the article I don't think this section belongs in the article. I would suggest leaving it out. (I do completely agree with your assessment of the Logan Act in general, btw.) Dce7 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"there's no direct evidence that she went to the Syrians and said ..." I never said there was. I said only that she SAID she was going to do something like that. Which she did, quite clearly, despite your disagreement.

"all I mean is that the administration (incl. the State Department) said, okay, you can go ..." I know. But again, she did not need such approval, and there is no evidence she received such approval. Support, yes. But an "OK" or similar approval? No. Pudge 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Any indictments or convictions?

Some websites claim (without reference) that no one has been convicted of violating this law. Also, what was the nature of the 1994 revisions? What inspired them? -- KarlHallowell 19:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Following document claim some indicments

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

Additional History

• Dennis Hastert did this in 1995? with Columbia (need citation)
• Newt Gingrich did this twice - once to China in 1997 (NY Times March 31, 1997) and then to Israel in 1998 (ABC News, May 27, 1998)

Neither Congressional leaders were investigated, much less indicted. --Cowbert 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bush consent to Syria trip

It is unknown as to whether President Bush gave his consent to these trips or not.

False. From [2]:

Despite the Bush administration opposition, the State Department said it had briefed Pelosi's staff and was prepared to help on the ground in Syria.

The State Department is part of the executive branch and is under Bush's direct control. Such a briefing and a willingness "to help on the ground in Syria" amounts to consent to the trip — even though he would have preferred that Pelosi not go. Dce7 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not true. That does not estasblish consent at all. They did not actively oppose the trip, and as such, they will give her whatever material support she needs, as a U.S. Representative, the Speaker of the House, without supporting her actual mission there. You can say the Bush administration did not try to stop her, and offered her material support, but not that he consented. Indeed, she did not need consent, and did not get it. Pudge 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See the Washington Post article I mentioned above. Bush was personally informed by Pelosi of the trip ahead of time and did not object. Bush therefore consented to her going to Syria. Whether he "supported" it, in terms of wanting her to go there, is a different matter. But you're changing the word to "support" in your response --- "without supporting her actual mission there." (How do you presume to know what her "actual mission there" was, anyway?) Dce7 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of initial objection does not in any way imply consent; that is completely false and has no basis in fact or reason, especially since he *did* object before she left. He did not consent, support, or in any way back her mission, according to all public statements on the subject. As to how I "presume" to know her mission, she said it in her statement, which was quoted. Pudge 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's just merge this discussion with our conversation in the above section if it's OK with you. Dce7 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the Logan Act in conflict with the First Amendment or the Constitution?

The First Amendment states in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Apparently the authors of the Logan Act felt that the right to petition did not include a right for American citizens to make requests of or enter into contracts with foreign governments. The states were specifically prohibited from doing so in Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution but have to act through Congress. In the same section states are prohibited from interfering with the obligations of contracts and requires that any compact between states go through Congress.

The Tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Does this include the right of American citizens to contract outside the US or petition a foreign government? Perhaps, but the American courts would not necessarily have jurisdiction. Jbergquist 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Foreign trade is subject to federal law, i.e., the federal government may and does interfere with foreign trade. Is the Logan Act a trade barrier? Jbergquist 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there are actions or forms of speech that may violate the terms of the Logan Act, but be constitutionally protected or be encompassed by the Act only due to the Act's broadness or vagueness. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Act, which has the effect of there being no challenges to the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is another example of a criminal statute that has never been enforced through prosecution, though has been the subject of much administrative and civil action. I am not sure whether the Logan Act has been applied administratively or civilly to prohibit acts or speech through means other than prosecution or to punish government employees for alleged violations under a lesser "civil standard" similar to the practice for alleged ADA violations. I question civil application of a statute written purely as a criminal law because it has the effect of civilly or administratively punishing a person for actions that may fail to meet the standard for criminal prosecution. The major exception here would be existence of evidence establishing guilt that is inadmissible in criminal court, but not prohibited from consideration in civil court or administratively. Most evidence, including unlawfully obtained evidence, is fair game outside of criminal prosecutions except evidence obtained through torture. The significant implication of administrative punishment is that a government employee could be fired for an alleged violation of the Logan Act without the necessary evidence for a criminal conviction. In the case of an employee who commits the alleged violation during the scope of employment is likely guilty of the improper conduct regardless of the terms of the Logan Act (i.e., attempting to negotiation or communicate with foreign governments outside the scope of an employee's duties). The constitutional implications arise for acts of an employee not involving the employee's duties or position. For a private citizen not employed by the government, civil or administrative action could result in injunctions with contempt enforcement and/or denial or termination of passports, licenses, contracts, grants, or any other action requiring approval of the government. I suppose if you do what you are supposed to or don't do what you ought not to do, then you don't have anything to worry about. Like my grandmother always said, "you should do what you are supposed to, like you ought to." If you get on the wrong side of it, you could wake up in shackles in the cargo hold of a very loud airplane and end up in a prison on foreign soil without even going before a judge or knowing what you are charged with. On the bright side, unless they put a muzzle on you, you can still say anything you want and your First Amendment rights would be in tact - its a right to speech, not to be heard. You speak with your mouth and listen with your ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.16.98.181 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

Article says "The only known civil criminal indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 . . ." . What's a "civil criminal indictment"? I assume that's a typo.169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Plenty of examples of Jimmy Carter being accused of violating this act, like urging the governments of the UK, France, USSR and China to oppose Desert Storm. I'm surprised they haven't been added to the article yet. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so. Just find some good sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding mostly blogs that accused Carter of violating it back when he talked with Hamas. There's also an NPR transcript. Is NPR considered a reliable source?HubcapD (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

yes NPR is a reliable source--like a major newspaper. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

US v Curtiss-Wright export?

User John2510 removed this chunk of text from the "Constitutionality of the Act" section of the article.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of December 21, 1936: {{quotation|The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

While the connection isn't explicit in the case ruling, it appears accepted; EG (from a quick search), "The Liberty-Speech Framework: Resolving the Tension Between Foreign Affairs Power and First Amendment Freedoms" (88 B.U. L. Rev. 749). It would seem to deserve reinsertion, though with an additional citation justifying the apparent relation to prevent complaints on WP:NOR. Abb3w (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I took it out because the case doesn't once mention the Act, let alone attempt to address its constutionality. Maybe it belongs elsewhere in the article(?), but not here. Since the case post-dated the Act, one would think the learned Justice would have mentioned it if he'd intended to. The case addresses the unilateral power of the President to act, while the Act addresses the power of the state to punish those who purport to speak in potential usurpation of that power. Very different really. I suspect the learned Justice didn't address the Act, of which he was certainly aware, or its constitutionality, in part, because of its obvious constitutional failings noted by others. Maybe there's an appropriate place to mention the case(?)John2510 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I created a separate section on the proper underlying constitutional authority to act and moved the discussion of Curtiss there. Borrowed from the Treaty Clause article. John2510 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran/Cotton

Would it be possible to add content on recent developments to this article? Such as this one? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

An edit war over this controversy has been going on with some editors removing the mention of it or inserting language to spin the description to their liking, and other editors negating these edits. You can see this in the article's history. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as the content is neutral, I think it's very worthy of noting. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The editors removing relevant material or adding POV spin should be dealt with according to policy. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Temporary Protection

Is temporary protection possible at this time? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)