How do feel about Pelosi's visit to Syria?

[Cascadian]

Poll question: How do feel about Pelosi's visit to Syria?

I think Nancy Pelosi has stolen Monkey Boy's thunder in terms of foreign policy when she met with Syrian President Bashar Assad. I think this was a great foreign policy coup and I hope we see more of this. Let the Neocons squirm. It's about time the Democrats start taking Bush's power away from him. Foreign policy is a great start.

How do you feel about Pelosi paying Assad a visit?

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi!



John

[saltpoint]

1. Strongly for.

Someone has to be the grown-up.

And it sure isn't going to be Bush or Condiliar.

[Cascadian]

2. It must never stop.

I want to see Congress step in more and more. I want them to make Monkey Boy look like a real lame duck. They have the power to bring our men and women home too. Let's do this! Don't just stop at foreign policy. Let's go for the whole enchilada!

John

[snowbear]

3. No voter(s) ... why not provide your reasoning?

C'mon, don't be a chickenshit....



...tell us why you voted no.

[Cascadian]

4. Probably some freeper lurkers. n/t

[AZProgresive]

27. I lurk there lol

Also at RonaldReagan.com since I stopped posting there when it became apparent I was banging my head against a wall. lol

Anyway, go to http://www.ronaldreagan.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21636 They never stop, do they?

[AZProgresive]

28. Stupid Cons...

You're going to have to cut 'n paste the link. Otherwise you get sent to "Liberals Suck" page... *rolleyes*

[job777]

37. Sure

The Logan Act may have been violated by what we did. That would constitute a felony. We could hurt ourselves.

[babylonsister]

5. I'd love to hear their reasoning, too. nt

[Cascadian]

6. The no votes are in the minority anyway.

Doesn't make any difference.


John

[babylonsister]

8. I'm just curious; why is Pelosi's visit a bad idea, in their opinion? nt

[saltpoint]

7. You know, politics aside, that costume is a real turn-on...

[IsItJustMe]

9. Chimp didn't like it either 'Against' voters. LOL That means I almost have to be for it for

that reason alone.

[AndyTiedye]

10. She's Acting Downright PRESIDENTIAL

[blm]

32. Hilary Rosen on MSNBC said Pelosi's trip is not her finest hour. Rosen does not DESERVE to be

TV speaking for the Dem party in ANY capacity.

[bdamomma]

42. geez,the rove machine is high tilt, to condemn Nancy's trip to Syria

he has got our weak media to slander Nancy's trip. These commentators should keep their opinions to themselves. This is disgusting how they are going after her. I already called Nancy's office to show my support for her dialogue with Syria.

[blm]

44. Bad news - Rosen is a DEM commentator and her comment was not in line with DNC's support

of Nancy, so who is she speaking for?


HILARY ROSEN, NBC ANALYST: It wasn‘t Nancy Pelosi‘s finest moment.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Yes.

ROSEN: And there is plenty to do the week where all the focus should be on keeping the showdown with the president on having accountability in Iraq.

CARLSON: Well, that‘s a good point.

ROSEN: I think that there are a lot of Democrats who want to see Nancy Pelosi push back on the president, push back on this foreign policy.

And it would have been a fine trip, had she not miscommunicated the Israeli message. I think that would—I think that sort of was the problem.

[grannylib]

11. Absolutely FOR. Somebody needs to step up and show some REAL

leadership in this nation, and the Democrats are FINALLY starting to do it, and they had damn well better keep it up.
The rePiglicans have been nothing but frauds and failures, top to bottom and sideways, with Chimpy and Cheney the Dick and Condosleaze-a and KKKarl Rover the Attack Dogg and the whole sorry lot of them in this misadministration being the worst of the worst.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. 100% for it

it's going to take a long time and a lot of work to restore our standing in the international community, and I can't think of a better person to start the process than Speaker Pelosi.

[Jacklyn75]

13. She's my hero! n/t

[ncteechur]

14. She provided the perfect example of GOVERNING--something

"pork and beans" have never heard of.

[Vulture]

15. As a matter of principle, or political preference?

These are not the same questions.

As a matter of political preference, if she is cleaning up Bush's mess then good for her. She has a lot of work ahead of her.

However, as a matter of principle it is a pretty brazen and unambiguous violation of the Logan Act (a felony AFAICT). I expect the Republicans to abide by both the spirit and letter of the law and it would be hypocritical to turn a blind eye when Pelosi violates the law merely because she is a Democrat and even if the law is rarely enforced. It undermines the legitimacy of the government when politicians from both parties feel free to violate the laws that they find inconvenient. What ever happened to the rule of law? I am uncomfortable and fear for the integrity of the Constitution anytime a politician acts as though the law does not apply to them, and it happens far too much. Sometimes it serves a good purpose, sometimes not, but that is quite irrelevant.

I doubt my sentiment will be popular or even well-received but I expect at least one party to stand on principle, even when it is inconvenient. The Democrats have the power to change the law if they do not like it. Otherwise, this essentially legitimizes the excuses of the Republicans when they violate the law. We should be above that, and lead by example using the tools authorized by the Constitution and statute.

[ncteechur]

16. Does the Logan Act and the US Code define what is meant by a

private citizen? So the Chief Justice could not negotiate either?

[Vulture]

24. That is pretty much it

The way it is written, no American citizen can negotiate with a foreign government except at the behest of the executive branch. While it has been a while since it has been enforced, there is precedent. The way it has been written, one can make the lawyerly argument that there is some gray area if a completely nobody with no credible authority whatsoever attempts to do this, and it has been the primary reason people like Jesse Jackson et al have not been prosecuted under this statute. However, Pelosi is one of the most powerful people in the US government and therefore she cannot use this escape. This is doubly true because she has made statements in the press (along with Lantos) that are unambiguous admissions that she is engaging in activities expressly prohibited under the Logan Act.

I do not like to see politicians act as though they are above the law, particularly when they are clearly violating it. It sets a very bad precedent.

[Labors of Hercules]

33. The Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

As a matter of legal precedent the act simply does not apply to members of Congress as they represent the authority of the United States, and there have been literally thousands of occasions when congressional delegations have met with foreign authorities, received assurances and enacted legislation accordingly.

[ProudDad]

18. Doesn't apply

She's a co-equal leader of the United States Government.

Not a private citizen in this context.

It would be funny to see that wimp gonzales TRY to arrest her though... :evilgrin:

[Vulture]

23. Not true.

In a strictly technical legal sense, she is not a "co-equal leader of the United States Government", at least not with respect to foreign policy type stuff. The House of Representatives is primarily a domestic body; most of the day-to-day foreign policy stuff that is under the purview of Congress happens in the Senate. Bush being an idiot does not change the fact that this is primarily an executive branch function, and when legislative branch, primarily a Senate function.

Let me put it this way: when a Democrat wins the whitehouse in '08, do you want influential Republican politicians traveling abroad negotiating with foreign leaders independent of the executive branch? If that happens, the Democrats will have no moral authority to complain. We have to be careful about going down roads that can be used against us later.

Note that under those statutes, her position makes her much more easily prosecutable. Never fear though, they haven't enforced that law in quite some time. Still, as I stated, I view it as a matter of principle that politicians at least pretend that they believe in the rule of law.

[mvd]

29. The Logan Act is vague and antiquated

What exactly constitutes "under authority of the U.S.?" She's employed by the government, so who is going to unauthorize her.

[job777]

38. Sorry

but it's not that vague, and there have been at least two Supreme court decisions on It In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." and And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
This may have caused more problems than benefit.

[unlawflcombatnt]

17. 72% in favor in Lou Dobbs poll

Bush has stepped in it again. Nearly 3/4 favor Pelosi's trip, while roughly 1/4 oppose. The latter being about the same as Bush's "favorable" rating.

Economic Populist Forum

[AshevilleGuy]

19. It was refreshing. Reminded me of better times,

when the US was governed by intelligent, competent human beings.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I think it is a brilliant move by a natural leader.

[bigwillq]

21. For it.

I am glad someone decided to step up to the diplomacy plate.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Baker-Hamilton said we should talk to Syria and Iran. Israel wanted to talk to Syria

only to decline out of fear of offending our Glorious Kommandant in Chief.

Every American President has talked to the leader of Syria, except for Moron in Chief.

Tony Blair showed today that talking to Iran was more productive than saber rattling.

Bill Clinton talked to everyone. He even spoke to Arafat on the phone while getting fellatio from Monica Lewinsky. Talk about multi-tasking! (If you don't believe me, it was in the Ken Starr report)

Pelosi was great! Bush is evil!

[Learn2Swim]

25. Also strongly in favor

[Redneck Socialist]

26. I'm very uncomfortable with it.

If the situation was reversed and a repub Speaker was meeting with foreign heads of state without the Democratic presidents blessing DU would be going nuts.

[Labors of Hercules]

34. Why? It happens all the time...

Congressional delegations have been meeting with foreign leaders and discussing US foreign policy from the very beginning. It's certainly nothing unusual for them to do this without the consent of the White House, look at the majority Republican Congressional delegation to Israel in 1999... Clinton didn't authorize it, but he didn't bitch about it either. ;-) Just demonstrates how effective this administration has been in brainwashing Americans to think the balance of power is all in the hands of the President.
:tinfoilhat: They will learn soon enough. Go Pelosi, go!

[Catchawave]

30. Thank you Nancy

:toast:

[zulchzulu]

31. It's a good thing Republican leaders never met with their enemies

Whoops! What I thinkin'?

[bluedawg12]

35. Understanding the Logan Act, it's history and use by our enemies

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

....................

The Logan act is fascinating.

First of all, “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, ...” the United States what?

Congress?
Department of State?
Executive branch?

All of those? Or any one of those?

Second, The Speaker of the House is not “any” citizen, she is an elected representative of the people and a member of the Legislative branch of the United States Government.

Speaker Pelosi is indeed a citizen but not any citizen. She is part of the legislative authority of government.


Next, “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, ...” she was on a fact finding trip, the same as repugs the week before her.
..................
Information about the Logan Act-

Might as well know this in case repugs bring it up.


http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=The+Logan+act&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf&w=logan+act&d=dw78__mdOdxi&icp=1&.intl=us

Prosecution:

According to this site there have been no prosecutions under this act for the 200 years it has been in law.

“In 1994 the fine was changed from $5,000 to “under this title.”2Otherwise, there donot appear to have been any substantial changes in the Act since its original
enactment on January 30, 1799, as 1 Stat. 613.”

Background:

“During the French Revolution, difficulties developed between the Federalist Administration of the United States and the various revolutionary governments of
France.3

In 1797 President Adams sent John Marshall, Charles C. Pinckney, and Elbridge
Gerry as special envoys to France to negotiate and settle claims and causes of
differences which existed between the French Directory and the United States. This
mission resulted in the XYZ letters controversy, and its failure led to such strong
anti-France feelings in the United States that preparations for war were begun by the
Congress. After the unsuccessful envoys returned from France, Dr. George Logan, aPhiladelphia Quaker, a doctor, and a Republican, decided to attempt on his own to
settle the controversies...

Logan, however, received a less friendly response from the United States after he returned. Secretary of State Pickering told him that the French decree was
illusory.

General Washington expressed his disapproval of Logan’s actions.
President Adams recommended that Congress take action to stop the “temerity and
impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and
the United States.”4Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut introduced aresolution in Congress...

Griswold introduced in the House a bill based on the resolution: Be it enacted, etc., that if any person, being a citizen of the United States,or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the
Government of the United States, directly or indirectly, commence or carry on
any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign..”

Prosecution:
“There appear to have been few indictments under the Logan Act.7The oneindictment found occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a
Kentucky farmer, who wrote an article in the FRANKFORT GUARDIAN OF FREEDOMunder the pen name of “A Western American.” Flournoy advocated in the article aseparate Western nation allied to France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky,an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice Marshall, went no furtherthan procuring the indictment of Flournoy, and the purchase of the Louisiana
Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become obsolete”





Judicial References to the Logan Act:


States v. Peace Information Center16held that Congress had the powerto enact the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 under its inherent power to
regulate external affairs as well as under its constitutional power to legislate
concerning national defense and that the Act is not subject to any constitutional
infirmity. The court mentioned similarities between the Logan Act and the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, and the language used appears to indicate that the Logan
Act, like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, is constitutional.




Waldron v. British Petroleum Co.25the plaintiff sued for triple damages underthe Clayton Act for alleged conspiracy of the defendants to prevent the importation
and sale by the plaintiff of Iranian oil. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff had
obtained his contract through a series of violations of criminal statutes including the
Logan Act. The court held that, in order to maintain this defense, the defendants
would have to show that the plaintiff sought to thwart some clearly and
unequivocally asserted policy measures of the United States instead of merely
statements of opinion, attitude, and belief of government officials. The defendants
were unable to show this. Further, the court noted that:


Department of State ReferencesA search of statements issued by the State

Department concerning the LoganAct from 1975 to the present has found two opinions in the DIGEST OF UNITEDSTATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, continued, beginning in 1980, with acolumn in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

In these instances theDepartment did not consider the activities in question to be inconsistent with the Logan Act.









One opinion concerned the questioning of certain activities of Senators
John Sparkman and George McGovern with respect to the government of Cuba. The
Department stated:The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict
members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in
pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of
Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in
any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature
and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that
country.


41DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW1975, p. 750.42DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1976, pp. 75-76.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states:“I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States
— that I had come to listen and learn....” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban
officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the
Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents
visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second
paragraph of Section 953.Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of SenatorsSparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section
953.

..............
A 1976 statement by the Department of State concerned a letter written byAmbassador Robert J. McCloskey, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional
Relations, to Senator John V. Tunney in reply to a constituent’s inquiry about a visit
of former President Nixon to the People’s Republic of China.


The letter stated:Mr. Nixon’s visit to the People’s Republic of China was undertakenentirely in his capacity as a private United States citizen. In accordance with the expressed wishes of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and as
a normal matter of comity between governments, the U.S. Government permitted
an aircraft from the People’s Republic of China to land in California in
connection with the visit. Aside from activities related to the Chinese special
flights (including provision of an escort crew to insure safety of operations in
U.S. airspace), the U.S. Government’s role in the visit was limited to the
provision by the Secret Service of personal protective services, as required by
law, to the former President....It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to make determinationsof whether criminal statutes of this sort have been transgressed and whetherindividuals should be prosecuted under them. However, the Department of State is unaware of any basis for believing that Mr. Nixon acted with the intent
prohibited by the Logan Act. In this connection, it should be noted that no one
has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act....
............

In a number of instances, people have been alleged, often by political opponents,to have violated the Logan Act. For example, critics have suggested that Ross
Perot’s efforts to find missing American servicemen in Southeast Asia have violated
the Logan Act. Critics alleged that former House Speaker Jim Wright violated the
Logan Act in his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984 while
campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, Reverend Jesse Jackson
went to Syria to help in the release of a captured American military flyer and to Cuba
and Nicaragua. The trips by Reverend Jackson occasioned comments from a number
of people, most notably from President Reagan, that Reverend Jackson had violated
the Logan Act. Other private citizens, such as Jane Fonda, have made trips which
have been criticized as violative of the Logan Act, but there have apparently been no
official sanctions taken in any of these instances.

............

Although it appears that there has never been a prosecution under the LoganAct, there have been several judicial references to it, indicating that the Act has not
been forgotten and that it is at least a potential point of challenge that has been used
against anyone who without authority allegedly interferes in the foreign relations of
the United States. There have been efforts to repeal the Act, one of the most
significant occurring in the late 1970’s. For example, Senator Edward Kennedy
proposed in the 95th Congress to delete the Logan Act from the bill to amend the
United States criminal code.43Senator James Allen insisted on reenacting the Act inexchange for promising not to prolong debate over the bill, and Senator Kennedy
agreed to this. However, since the House was unable to consider the criminal reform
bill in the 95th Congress, the possibility of deleting the Act in a conference
committee was eliminated. It is possible, nevertheless, that the issue of whether the
Logan Act should remain will be considered by another Congress.

[bluedawg12]

36. Conserva-pigs tried to stick Kerry with Logan

The Logan Act is a chest nut favored by the repugs when it suits them to rattle felony chains and hand cuffs in front of opponents.








"Then on Tuesday, during his grilling of Dr. Condoleezza Rice at her confirmation hearing, Kerry repeated the story, but peppered in an assertion that Arab nations wanted in, as well.

"Every Arab leader I asked, do you want Iraq to fail, says no. Do you think you will be served if there's a civil war? They say no. Do you believe that failure is a threat to the region and to the stability of the world? Yes; same with the European leaders. But each of them feel that they have offered more assistance, more effort to be involved, want to be part of a playing field that's more cooperative, and yet they feel rebuffed."

Bear in mind this was not an official trip to Europe and the Middle East. Kerry was not visiting as a representative of the United States Government. He was in no way commissioned by the executive branch to negotiate alliances with foreign countries. So what was he doing there? In an e-mail to 3 million political supporters in which he also calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kerry said, "After several months consumed by the campaign trail, I wanted to make contact with our soldiers on the ground there."

In short, his trip was, essentially, a very public vacation. One in which Kerry seems to have run afoul of the Logan Act, .."

[primative1]

39. Thanks For Asking ...

Judging by the news last night I had become certain that the Decider was deciding for me yet again.
Anyhow .... :)
Imagine that, diplomacy coming from America? Who would have ever thunk it. I was certain all we were good for was bellicose rhetoric.

[enough already]

40. This is exactly what needs to be happening

If there is way to engage the so-called 'terra-ists' like bin laden I'd love to see that happen as well. Keep shoving it back in the chimp's face, Nancy!

[leftwingnut]

41. That's a no-brainer..."FOR" eom

[OHdem10]

43. This attack on Pelosi is a Republican Orchestrated

Plan. Remember the other day that Snide little
representative from Ga grinned and said the
Democrats Honeymoon is over.

The Republicans(you have to give them credit) can
oraganize stick together bring the Media in to
assist them. If lies are told that is OK.

The Dems in Congress and all Activists had
best be ready to fire back.

First it was Webb. As Fox News proudly reported,
--we do not think there will be anymore talk
of Webb for VP. Using the Media and Fox, they
did everything they could tomake Webb look foolish
re that silly GUN INCIDENT. While I think it
was mistake to have the Washington Press Corp talking
about Webb as VP Candidate, I surely hope as a
Senator he continues to take stands and represent
the party well.


Never forget the Republicans do everything in their
power to marginalize a strong Democrat. Power is
their goal and they will do everything to win.

Now Nancy Pelosi.
From the beginning, Nancy has been in target site.
This visit has been twisted by Republicans with
able assistance of the Media.

They choose to believe the Israeli Leader over our
own leaders. You knew the plan was in progress when
program after program were repeating verbatim the
twisted version.

As a handful of credible journalists pointed out.
It has not been that long ago when GWB made an
announcement re Israel. The Israeli Leader immediately
denied --in effect calling GWB a liar. The serious
Journalists pointed out Israeli Leaders have to play
to their home audience. Others pointed our--GWB
Adm very close to Israel and could have prompted
Ohmert to contradict Pelosi. Politics is politics
and the WH stops at nothing.

The Media assist as they continuously promulgate
lies. How much are they trusted any more. Only
a few can be trusted.

Most people with serious judgmet know Nancy Pelosi
is not stupid and can be trusted not to do anything
to hurt this country.

The plan to destoy Nancy started with Cheney on Libaugh
Pelosi '"bad bhavior), Fox has been like a dog gone
mad has had so many different stories---who can
believe them. Now the MSM--so fearful they fell
in line with Fox to carry out the Republican Plan.

The Honeymoon (if there was one) is over. Those Dems
had better stand strong. Do not shrink. Fight, Fight, Fight.

[LaPera]

45. Who really gives a fuck? Besides the right-wing press that your

obviously reacting & catering to....If Pelosi or any Democrat even orders a red wine with fish for dinner the Dems will be labeled as terrorist lovers by these same republican sick, vindictive, soiled right-wing corporate republican reporters, who offer no help to American family's so, they simply change the story keep Americans pointing the finger elsewhere and at bullshit...Just wait if a democratic can finally take office as the president...these vicious lying pieces of shit known as republicans will make up and fill our airwaves with lies & distortion to keep the focus off the republicans thieving and fuck-ups, because the republicans know the people will just eat it up....Obviously!.

[Adelante]

46. Totally in favor nt