Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

She could be prosecuted, but could she be convicted? First, you have to show that she negotiated with the Syrian government. That probably would be hard to show even if it did happen. This is probably why no one has ever been prosecuted (one indictment but didn't go to regular trial, and of course no convictions) under this act before. Second, you'd probably have to overcome some sort of challenge to the law based on the First Amendment. After all, the Logan Act may actually be unconstitutional (which would make it one of the longest surviving acts to be so).

The fact that she could be in theory be prosecuted under this law is more a historical curiousity than any legitimate concern.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 6, 2007 10:31 AM

If I thought there was subscription that would get her prosecuted, I'd sign up TODAY!!

Posted by Steve at April 6, 2007 10:58 AM

Its no different than when Newt Gingrich went to China in 1997. Back then, the Right was cheering Newt on.

By the way, it appears the Israeli government is quietly pleased by Ms. Pelosi's trip.

Posted by Bill White at April 6, 2007 10:59 AM

Its no different than when Newt Gingrich went to China in 1997.

Yes, it is. The Clinton White House didn't object to Newt's trip to China, and in fact coordinated messages.

And we'll need more than your word for it that Israel is "pleased," quietly or otherwise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 6, 2007 11:15 AM

Saying publically that we should treat with the Syrians, stating (even demanding) that we should take certain actions, these are protected speech. Actually conducting diplomacy with a foreign power is not speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

It might be hard to prove that it was negotiation and not just "fact-finding" and of course would be politically unwise to attempt such a prosecution. but that's all separate from the constitutional issues.

Posted by KeithK at April 6, 2007 11:32 AM

Given that a President can travel within the United States without the consent of the Senators and Congressmen of the districts they visit, it would seem to violate the coequality of the branches to insist that a Speaker of the House needs prior approval to travel abroad. Furthermore, was the Republican delegation that preceded Pelosi to Syria also in violation of this law, or is the whole issue just the usual bullshit blizzard from the GOPedia?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 6, 2007 11:47 AM

it would seem to violate the coequality of the branches to insist that a Speaker of the House needs prior approval to travel abroad.

If someone were insisting on that, you might have a point. But as usual, you don't.

Furthermore, was the Republican delegation that preceded Pelosi to Syria also in violation of this law, or is the whole issue just the usual bullshit blizzard from the GOPedia?

If they violated the law, prosecute them all. I'm no Republican.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 6, 2007 11:54 AM

In 1998, Newt Gingrich met with leaders in Israel and at the time this ABC report was issued:

DAVID ENSOR, ABC News: (voice-over) It's beginning to look as if the days when American partisan politics ended at the water's edge may be over.
Rep. NEWT GINGRICH (R), Speaker of the House:... Jerusalem, as the united and eternal capital of Israel.

DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) That runs directly contrary to official US policy, which holds that Jerusalem's future is a matter for negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Next, Speaker Gingrich took on the Clinton administration's effort to convince Israel to give up about 13 percent more of the West Bank. He said, quote, "We cannot allow non- Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security." The non-Israelis in question are Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her aides, one of whom reacted sharply.

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: Rather stunning comments that would undermine the efforts we're trying to make to advance America's national interest.

DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) But it was a comment made two weeks ago that has Albright's team simmering with anger. "I think it's wrong," Gingrich said then, "for the American secretary of state to become the agent for the Palestinians."

JAMES RUBIN: I found particularly appalling an outrageous his suggestion that the secretary of state of the United States was an agent for the Palestinians.

Posted by Bill White at April 6, 2007 12:12 PM

Pelosi is fair game for political attacks but she's not doing anything Gingrich didn't do.

Now, if we openly declared war on Syria it might be a different story, but we haven't.

Posted by Bill White at April 6, 2007 12:14 PM

Squidward says: Speaker of the House needs prior approval to travel abroad.

No prior approval is needed, except to conduct diplomacy talks is a different matter.

Posted by Mac at April 6, 2007 12:14 PM

I found particularly appalling an outrageous his suggestion that the secretary of state of the United States was an agent for the Palestinians.

What I find more appalling is the fact that she essentially was.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 6, 2007 12:32 PM

As a policy matter, you make a legitimate argument, Rand.

However, if Newt Gingrich can meet with Israeli leaders and then openly attack Clinton's Secretary of State and its legal why is what Pelosui did a violation of law, regardless of whatever purely political arguments we can make?

Posted by Bill White at April 6, 2007 12:35 PM

Rand: "If someone were insisting on that, you might have a point. But as usual, you don't."

My point stands: The exclusive control given to the Executive branch over all non-bureaucratic contact with foreign governments is not mirrored in the other branches; there are no criminal penalties for officials of the Executive branch meeting with anyone in the Legislative or Judicial purview to influence issues under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the law is obviously ridiculous, criminalizing every school child who's ever written to a foreign government about whaling.

"If they violated the law, prosecute them all."

Why is this your position only for Congress?

Mac: "except to conduct diplomacy talks is a different matter."

All Americans overseas represent their country, but the Constitution gives the Executive branch control over policy and negotiation. To my knowledge, Pelosi made no diplomatic offers, requests, or demands, and did not represent herself as having the power to do so. If that is the case, then she was no more engaged in diplomacy than anyone else traveling abroad, regardless of whom she met with.

Rand: "What I find more appalling is the fact that she essentially was."

Gingrich was an ethics-free, ultrapartisan saboteur who would and did do everything in his power to harm and besmirch the Clinton administration at every level, on every subject, and at any cost.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 6, 2007 01:18 PM

"If they violated the law, prosecute them all."

Why is this your position only for Congress?

Who said it was? You excel at strawmen, if nothing else.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 6, 2007 02:04 PM

if Newt Gingrich can meet with Israeli leaders and then openly attack Clinton's Secretary of State and its legal

Where was he when he criticized Albright?

If it was overseas, he should have waited until he got home, but that's a separate issue from the Logan Act.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 6, 2007 02:06 PM

Actually conducting diplomacy with a foreign power is not speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

That depends IMHO. After all, one could represent oneself illegally as a representative of the US, which is a form of fraud, or perhaps commit treason (if the negotiation is with an enemy of the US and it otherwise qualifies). But the Logan Act seems to cover more than that.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 6, 2007 03:02 PM

This is the ridiculous claim made by the ideolouges when someone from the opposition party does something like this.

"True believers" always bite on it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 6, 2007 03:57 PM

Bill, as I think Rand has already intimated, you are confusing Pelosi talking to the Syrians and Gingrich giving a political speech to the world. Nancy Pelosi is certainly free to give a speech in the US, or in Syria, or anywhere in the world where she criticizes the Bush Administration foreign policy.

What she is not free to do is enter substantive discussions with the Syrian government in which she attempts to reach direct government-to-government agreements, formal or otherwise.

The distinction may be a bit hard to grasp, and in cases it's certainly hard to draw. It's sort of like the difference between Paul McCartney's lawyer talking directly to Heather Mills' lawyer, versus the both of them giving speeches to the press in which they criticize each other, say what the other should do, suggest what they might do themselves, and so on.

In the end, I think these things only mattered in the eighteenth and 19th century, when communications were so limited and time-consuming that it was possible for irrevocable decisions to be made in the time between some imposter (mis)representing the US and the time when the Executive could disavow him. I don't see how Pelosi's games can have any real effect now, because with saturation news coverage no one is under any illusions about to what degree she does, and does not, represent the official policy controlled by the President. She's not really fooling anyone, and no one is going to make a tragic mistake. It's just part of the Nancy Pelosi Dog-n-Pony show, grandstanding for the rabid anti-Bush rabble back home in Marin County.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 6, 2007 06:15 PM

Brian said: To my knowledge, Pelosi made no diplomatic offers, requests, or demands, and did not represent herself as having the power to do so.

To our knowledge, true. If she didn't, then fine, though I can't fathom why she'd go in the first place except to cause a flap and undermine the Republicans. However, if she did discuss diplomatic offers, throw the book at her.

Posted by Mac at April 6, 2007 07:13 PM

Bill White it's interesting to see then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reaction to then-Speaker Gingrich and confront that with the Madeleine Albright of today coming to the public defense of now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Even though it isn't exactly the same I'm not fond of Gingrich's speech either (despite agreeing politically). If any of them want to make statements there's plenty of room to do that within the US.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 6, 2007 07:25 PM

Carl Pham, is Israel a foreign nation or not?

I have no legal problem with a Speaker of the House meeting with Israeli political leaders behind closed doors to discuss US foreign policy. Syria? Yes that does bother me more and discretion is called for but the legal status of the two situations is identical.

That said, it seems Pelosi is doing what the Baker-Hamilton commission advocated which merely adds another layer of political complexity.

Posted by at April 7, 2007 09:25 AM

Darrell Issa, Republican

A U.S. Republican congressman met President Bashar Assad on Thursday, a day after a visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spurning the White House policy of isolating the Syrian leadership.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California said President Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria.

Posted by Bill White at April 7, 2007 03:19 PM

Ooops, forgot this quote:

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You gotta do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, who was part of the delegation.

Frank Wolf (R-VA)

Posted by Bill White at April 7, 2007 03:22 PM

BS: Given that a President can travel within the United States without the consent of the Senators and Congressmen of the districts they visit, it would seem to violate the coequality of the branches to insist that a Speaker of the House needs prior approval to travel abroad.

First, if you read the article, you would understand that issue is whether or not a Congressmen negotiated with Syria on behalf of the United States Government without appointment by the President and consent of the Senate.

Second, it is Article II of the US Constitution which gives the President the power to point ambassadors, emissaries, and consuls with foreign governments and the Senate the power to advise and consent. There is nothing about co-equality governance in the US Constitution. Further, Nancy Pelosi is a member of the House of Representatives, which has no direct powers related to US foreign policy. It's members can be made emissaries by the President, and they can pass bills that if agreed by the Senate can be submitted to the President to be signed as a law that could effect foreign policy. That's all she can do.

That said, the Logan Act is rarely enforced. Furthermore, I'm not up-to-date on the particulars of the formation of the Iraq Study Group. If Bush commissioned them, and the Senate ok'd it, then that could play a factor in Pelosi's defense.

Posted by Leland at April 7, 2007 04:22 PM

Posted by Leland at April 7, 2007 04:23 PM

The President is the president of the entire country, everywhere is his consituency. But that is a moot point. Of course he can go anywhere in the country.

I don't recall Gingrich's acts, but Israel and Palestine and even China were not at war with the US. Syria is in an undeclared war with the US. They are sending men and equipment across the border to fight Americans. This is not conjecture, my regiment fought them frequently at the border. Pelosi knows this.

Posted by Mike Rentner at April 7, 2007 06:21 PM

Nice to see all the lefties defending Newt Gingrich's actions....oh, they're not, they are defending Pelosi's actions by hiding behind Newts skirt.

Democrats know no principle, no irrefutable truths, only a chaotic swirl in the stream of events to which they react, growing ever more contorted in their positions, contradicting themselves repeatedly in very short timespans.

This is grotesquely apparent to anyone with a short term memory that exceeds 5 minutes.

Posted by Joel Mackey at April 7, 2007 06:46 PM

Pelosi did not violate the Logan Act. The act requires that a citizen negotiate with a foreign power on behalf of the government. Pelosi was negotiating on behalf of the Democrats.

Posted by Tully at April 7, 2007 06:47 PM

What about state governors negotiating with foreign powers about GHG emissions? They have proposed state compacts and nation-to-compact treaties if memory serves.

Posted by Whitehall at April 7, 2007 07:08 PM

Newt was not ethics free. Although a serial adulterer, he at least realized the limitations of his position during the Clinton impeachment and resigned.

Clinton (either one) not so much.

I would punish not only the congress, but also members of the Executive, say Jimmy Carter with his "missions" to North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

Posted by Don Meaker at April 7, 2007 07:30 PM

Pelosi made the trip for one reason, to grand-stand as a political opponent of the President. She is in all senses powerless to negociate even the price of a cup of coffee. The democrates are only now, 10 years later, following the republican play book of media frenzy. The only problem is they keep tripping over a dime to pick up a nickle. A simple press conference (organized) by Pelosi would have turned the 'bad' into good if she opened by condeming the Syrian governments terrorist links as impediments to move forward and concluding that otherwise they were civil and open to dialogue. Yet, what she did was typical of someone guilty of trying to create a problem on top of a problem, she defended her 'independant' approach as a shadow President. This act alone will cost her in the days weeks and months to come, any foreign policy issue she states will have a slight tinge. Pelosi sells realestate by profession and also grants for special interests to pass dead bills. It's all Howard Dean, trying to play the field for next years elections.

Regards,

B.A, Hokom

Posted by B.A.Hokom at April 8, 2007 12:04 AM

On the point of prosecuting Pelosi via the 'Logan' act, there's nothing to be gained by it but bad press. Besides that, the Logan Act would be amended by the Congressional majority before any trial date could be set, or actually any 'oversight' commities could be formed...

Regards,

B.A. Hokom

Posted by B.A.Hokom at April 8, 2007 12:14 AM

Yes, she likely did violate the Logan Act, judging by the various announcements and arguments in her wake.

However, she's not exactly the first person to do that - not even the first member of Congress (remember the three idiots who went to Baghdad in 2002 to offer reassurances to Saddam Hussein?), and there are good reasons not to start enforcing it with a Speaker of the House. There needs to be some consistency.

Posted by jaed at April 8, 2007 12:33 AM

Enough, already. This tit-for-tat, "he did this, she did that" crap is ridiculous.

We weren't involved in a war in 1998. We are involved in one now.

THE central premise of our enemies in this war is that Americans don't have the stomach / attention span to finish the job; if they can just avoid losing, we'll eventually hand them victory by quitting the field.

All Pelosi's done is confirm their premise. Her message is pretty simple:

"Hey, if it was up to me, we'd pull out of Iraq and hand it over to you guys tomorrow (if not later today). Unfortunately, we can't do that - Bush is still president, dammit - but at least you know where WE'RE coming from and we'll do everything we can for the next 21 months to keep Bush from winning (that'd be bad for all of us, wouldn't it?).

Posted by BD at April 8, 2007 06:28 AM

BD: "We weren't involved in a war in 1998."

The Republican Party certainly was.

"We are involved in one now."

Try as I might, I can't seem to find the declaration.

"THE central premise of our enemies in this war is that Americans don't have the stomach"

You're wrong on multiple levels, but what does this have to do with the question at hand?

"All Pelosi's done is confirm their premise."

Right. Our enemies were demoralized and ready to quit until they saw Pelosi in a hijab.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 8, 2007 10:07 AM

If it was up to me, we'd pull out of Iraq and hand it over to you guys tomorrow (if not later today). Unfortunately, we can't do that - Bush is still president, dammit - but we'll do everything we can for the next 21 months to keep Bush from losing even more in the name of winning. It will be very bad for all of us.

Posted by at April 8, 2007 10:08 AM

we'll do everything we can for the next 21 months to keep Bush from losing even more in the name of winning

Dude, aside from the fact that Iraqis continue to prefer to argue by blowing each other to bits instead of posting really snarky comments on message boards (the uncivilized louts), I'd appreciate some pointer to evidence for this base canard that the US is losing any war at all, anywhere.

And, by the way, the fact that American soldiers are dying ain't it. American soldiers die all the time, from training accidents, let alone from performing their duties. That's their job. An army that never records any deaths is probably not doing anything useful, just the way a car that never accumulates any mileage and wear-and-tear is clearly superfluous and should be sold.

We don't say an effort to keep the law downtown is a "failure" because policemen are routinely killed in the line of duty. We just recognize that's part of the price for law and order.

Also, you can save your breath on evidence that consists of polls or anecdotes or wild speculation about vague touchy-feely stuff like whether other countries "respect" the US. I couldn't care less. If you've got evidence that country X is no longer trading with the US, or barring US companies from investing in them, or something concrete and damaging, let's hear it. But the angry e-mail foreigners might write (using US software on a US computer, while eating US food) to their equivalent of The New York Times have zero economic and political impact. They're just noise.

Let's not hear evidence that relies on speculation about the future, either. That Osama bin Laden is still at large (if he's not being eaten by worms already) and might someday pull off 9/11 The Sequel isn't evidence, it's just wild guessing. (The concrete fact that it's been 6 years since 9/11 and al Qaeda hasn't managed any follow-up is, however, evidence against the idea that OBL, even if alive, hasn't been effectively neutralized.)

And, finally, if your evidence consists of assertions about conditions in Iraq for Iraqis, then permit me to yawn in advance. That would be evidence that one Iraqi faction or another is losing a war, but doesn't say diddly about the US unless you're going to say that critically important US interests are at stake in the Iraqi civil struggle. And I know you don't want to say that, because it would mean that pulling out of the Iraq war (or setting deadlines and timetables for doing so) would be unbelievably stupid and short-sighted.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 8, 2007 03:56 PM

(The concrete fact that it's been 6 years since 9/11 and al Qaeda hasn't managed any follow-up is, however, evidence against the idea that OBL, even if alive, hasn't been effectively neutralized.)

Posted by Carl Pham at April 8, 2007 03:56 PM

It means nothing of the sort. And it is ridiculous to assume that OBL is dead...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 8, 2007 07:10 PM

...it is ridiculous to assume that OBL is dead...

It is equally (in fact more so) ridiculous to assume he's alive. There's certainly been precious little evidence for it since late 2001, before which he was happy to release all kinds of videos spurring on the troops, and since then, virtually nada. But then, you specialize in ridiculous, Robert.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 8, 2007 07:17 PM

It is equally (in fact more so) ridiculous to assume he's alive. There's certainly been precious little evidence for it since late 2001,
Posted by Rand Simberg at April 8, 2007 07:17 PM

There is little evidence that you (and I) know of...

To speculate that he is dead is patently absurd. If he were dead then his death would have been used as a propaganda tool by THE BASE and there would be some sort of announcement of a successor...

They have done that in every other single time a "death" has occurred...ie used it as a propaganda/recruiting tool...and then announced a successor.

To assume that OBL is dead absent any hard evidence is as collasoul a blunder as the assumptions made by the Bush administration going into Iraq which is about the dumbest assumption since the ones that Nagumo made no the flag bridge of IJNS Akagi.

But then I am sure that it is important for those who want to make assumptions for which proof should be required to do so.

As Rommel told an associate who was making assumptions such as yours "You have the luxury to do so"...

enjoy

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 8, 2007 07:44 PM

From before Pelosi's trip:

Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.
The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment."

Apparently this angered Dick Cheney who called up Olmert and told him to back away from this version of events.

Posted by Bill White at April 8, 2007 08:53 PM

"if the Bush administration was clever, the president would magnanimously issue a preemptive pardon to Madam Speaker (for this one incident, not blanket), but not to any of the Republicans who went"

--
"a pardon, to be effective, must be accepted"
(http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=236&invol=79)

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 9, 2007 02:18 PM

Post a comment