It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this an offense under the Logan Act? GOP's message to Iran.

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Thanks. There are some times I just have to laugh.

Indeed, education doesn't always lend itself to same thought. I think back to the American Civil War, when generals from both sides had attended West Point.

I think that Cotton is being groomed as the leader for the next generation Republican war hawks. He is new to the Senate and is naive...letter shows it. His ego was probably stroked by the likes of John "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain and Lindsey Graham to put out this manifesto.

I am embarrassed as an American over those 47 signatories, but have respect for those seven who didn't.

Even if this Mr. Cotton is gung ho to be a hardliner (there are lots of those in the Kremlin and in Israel, too), he created an embarrassing document to try to scuttle diplomacy; but it also is a partisan political act, setting up election contenders.

As Isaac Asimov wrote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” Then there's the phrase, war is what happens when diplomacy fails. And as Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket" (Keep that last one in mind, Mr. Cotton, as you talk with defense contractors and their lobbyists.)

As far as being an offense under the Logan Act, I would say that it walks up to that line, if not putting a toe across it, as it sounds like a negotiation when the POTUS is openly negotiating. For a group that hates the Constitution to be messed with, these signers sound either ignorant or don't like what it says, so they'll jump right in and mess with it.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: intrepid

The Logan Act refers to individuals acting on behalf of the government.

Sadly, Congress is part of the government.



And this was in fact individuals acting on behalf of the executive branch. This is a clear breach of the separation of powers, blackmailing a foreign government and.treasonous.

I'd like to see charges brought - but nothing will happen. However, it does show the maturity and loyalities of the signatories.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

This is ridiculous, today's Republicans in the U.S. are a destructive force. The ones we have in congress right now are extremists compared to others in the past. This stunt is similar to when the Republicans in the House shut down the government because they refused to deal with Obama's budget. Are Republicans going to use their future Presidential terms to destroy all of Obama's policies instead of building on them? That is what this seems to foreshadow.

Many Republicans are convinced that Obama is a Muslim Atheist Communist operative sent to destroy the U.S. or something like that, and I am beginning to think that there is some credibility to those that think Republicans don't like Obama because he is black. The hatred of him is religious in nature. The point is Republicans just don't like Obama, and for emotional reasons - some probably even think he is the anti-Christ.
edit on 10amTue, 10 Mar 2015 01:33:41 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
No, it doesn't. Extremely poor taste of them though.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Donno if this was posted already but here goes the Iranian's response to the poison pen letter.



Dr. Zarif`s Response to the Letter of US Senators
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
en.mfa.ir...

I am actually thinking about signing a petition against those 47 senators for treasonous acts floating around on the net, I won't if it doesn't have teeth.
edit on 10-3-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
So the GOP Congress is going against the wishes of the Prez. No biggie there, happens all the time BUT by sending this message have the GOP overstepped their mandate into the land of felony?


I have to say, I was on the road the last four days and listening to this on the radio, that was the first thing that came to mind. While I share their frustration with the "executive action uber alles" thing that's been going on, I also don't think you can, as a Congressman, just step in and start addressing foreign policy with some government without falling afoul of the Logan act, and rightly so.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

You are the one that mentioned a super majority vote so let's see the motion for a vote for this letter they held in the Senate.


Are you even following the conversation?

The super-majority aspect is in relation to ratifying a treaty. At this point, there IS NO TREATY and in effect, what those Senators are saying, is there cannot be a ratified treaty without a super-majority vote.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
And this was in fact individuals acting on behalf of the executive branch. This is a clear breach of the separation of powers, blackmailing a foreign government and.treasonous.


Show me, exactly, what in the letter constituted 'blackmail'. Use the specific verbiage.



I'd like to see charges brought - but nothing will happen.


And why will no charges be brought by the Justice Department? Is it political expediency? The fact that there is nothing to charge? Is Eric Holder just a really, really, nice guy and he thought he would give the opposition party a pass on his way, thankfully, out the friggin door?



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

UPDATE: 10:56 p.m. -- Vice President Joe Biden added his voice to the chorus of disapproval condemning Cotton's letter in a Monday night statement. Biden, who served in the Senate for 36 years, called the Republicans' tactic "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

"I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said


I think the world is starting to see the US crumble from within...

link to source
edit on 10-3-2015 by ATF1886 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: intrepid

Seriously... What sort of moran would shout it out loud "nobody can trust us, we are loonies" ... Oh yes, Good Old Pissheads - GOP


I think that's Gay Old Pedophiles



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010

You are the one that mentioned a super majority vote so let's see the motion for a vote for this letter they held in the Senate.


Are you even following the conversation?

The super-majority aspect is in relation to ratifying a treaty. At this point, there IS NO TREATY and in effect, what those Senators are saying, is there cannot be a ratified treaty without a super-majority vote.

No the question is have you been following the article? If there is no treaty to ratify then why are these traitors sending a letter to Iran? Also you are wrong they are not saying there will not be a treaty they said that when Obama is out of office any treaty he makes with Iran will be overturned. By acting before there is any kind of treaty had been made or any kind of vote has been taken then they are in violation of the Logan act. Face it you are supporting a bunch of traitors that have overstepped the legal limit of their powers.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
No the question is have you been following the article? If there is no treaty to ratify then why are these traitors sending a letter to Iran?


Of course I have been following the article, which makes it clear they are reiterating how the treaty process works. I asked you if you have been following THIS conversation which your above comment makes clear, you are not.


Also you are wrong they are not saying there will not be a treaty they said that when Obama is out of office any treaty he makes with Iran will be overturned. By acting before there is any kind of treaty had been made or any kind of vote has been taken then they are in violation of the Logan act. Face it you are supporting a bunch of traitors that have overstepped the legal limit of their powers.


How is stating your intentions a violation of the Logan Act? By saying that members of Congress cannot comment on foreign policy you have stifled their ability to represent their constituent's viewpoints. What part of that letter was incorrect? Does the President have the authority to make treaties and have them approved unilaterally? Do you need an refresher on civics?

If this were an actual violation of the Logan Act why is Eric Holder's Justice Department not charging them? Put down your Obom-poms and answer the questions.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
But, this whole thing is odd to me. Tom Cotton, the senator behind this, is no dummy. Like Obama, he went to Harvard University and Harvard Law School.


Interestingly, although he considers himself a constitutional scholar, Mr. Cotton made a constitutional error in the letter...


In fact, he declares that the Iranian leadership “may not fully understand our constitutional system.” But his letter contains a pretty egregious constitutional error, one that would get him marked down sharply on a first-year con-law paper.

He writes that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.”

But the Senate does not “ratify” anything. Ever. The Senate advises and consents to treaties and other international agreements, and the president, in the name of the United States, ratifies them as binding law on the country in its international relations.


Source

That fact is on the Senate's own webpage...


“The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.”

edit on 3/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The actual text from the Constitution is as follows:


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;


'Advice and Consent of the Senate' is legally and historically understood as their vote of approval. The President cannot approve a treaty he negotiated, only the Senate can do so.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, the president has the power to ratify treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. But the Senate doesn't ratify treaties. They approve of them, but they don't ratify them.

This is from the Senate's Web Page



The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.

edit on 3/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Understood, however this does not change the overall message of the letter which states that the President's treaty, unless approved by the Senate, is worthless.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Bibi is the president of the USA and prime mister of Israel as far as the GOP leadership is concerned, because ..These Hoes ain't loyal!



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
If you want to see what an actual violation of the Logan Act, looks like :


Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.


-Forbes


That, is a negotiation with a foreign government. That, is plotting to undermine a sitting president, with a foreign power. That, is a violation of the Logan Act.

edit on 10-3-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: grammar



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Oh stop. Teddy was a sweet boy and never did anyone wrong. Just ask Mary Jo.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Accusations of violations of the Act In general, the Act is intended to prohibit unauthorized American citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States. Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[3] The only known indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice John Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot.[1][4] During the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon secretly communicated, through campaign official Anna Chennault, with the South Vietnamese government, attempting to get them to refuse participation in peace talks with President Johnson, and promising a better deal once elected.[5][6] Defense Secretary Clark Clifford thought the move illegal, and President Lyndon B. Johnson called it treasonous, but did not want to reveal that the NSA was intercepting communications in Vietnam. Nixon's efforts were successful. The "negotiations failed, and the war dragged on for another seven years."[6] In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded: The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], 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. 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 Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[7] In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.[1] In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it. In June 2007, Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would prohibit then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from drawing on Federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act.[8] The amendment was not adopted. In March 2015, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter to the government of Iran.[9] Several commentators alleged that the letter violated the Logan Act.[6][10][11][12]


thats from wiki on the "violations of the logan act" that no one seemed to want to enforce then....and why nothing will come about this petitions or not. seems like this is one of those laws they selectivly choose to enforce or in this case not enforce over pretty much the entire history of usa. the left has done it the right has done it and they both will continue to do it when it suits their parties wishes and needs and yeah nothing will be done about it .

hotair.com... eitehr enforce the law or reppeal it as currently its kind of a joke

fas.org...

only one person was ever charged with a logan act violation(never prosecuted) but that was some farmer who wanted west of the missippi to be a new french nation but thats the closest its ever been to being implemented

www.washingtonpost.com... history on logan act and why nothin will happen here either


As written, the law is awfully vague, allowing for a number of possible ways it might be broken. A report from the Congressional Research Service in 2006 recounted the case of the one person who's ever been charged with violating the act: Francis Flournoy, a farmer from Kentucky who wrote a letter in a regional paper in 1803 that advocated a new country west of the Mississippi allied with France. He never faced trial, and the new country -- as you may know -- never came to be. Nor, McConnell pointed out, are the senators who wrote the letter to Iran likely to be the first punished by the Logan Act. That's because of the constitutional "speech and debate clause," he noted, "which exempts members of Congress from arrest or prosecution for acts done in their official capacity." We noted this last week, when considering the possible charges against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). A member of Congress can slander you from the floor of the Senate, and there's nothing you can do about it. "Offhand, I can't think of any reason why this would not fall within that," McConnell said. There's also an informal policy under which members of Congress defer to the administration on matters of foreign policy, particularly when overseas. That's not anything binding, and, McConnell notes, it too has been somewhat loosely followed over the last 10 to 15 years.
so they as members of congress would seem to have immunity from this kind of thing
en.wikipedia.org... info on how the speach or debate clause works
edit on 10-3-2015 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join