NLBS #41: The 47 So-Called "Traitors," And Their Letter to Iran

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nope you're wrong here's a PDF on the amended Logan act in 1994. The section you quoted was directly out of the amendment I will post it again.

. .As amended, the Act states:
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, 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.1
In 1994 the fine was changed from $5,000 to “under this title.”2 Otherwise, there do not appear to have been any substantial changes in the Act since its original enactment on January 30, 1799, as 1 Stat. 613.

Again it is directed at private citizens elected officials are authorities of the government. Here's the source it's on page 4 educate yourself.

true legal definition of the Logan act.

a reply to: Greathouse

Jesus! That is EXACTLY what I posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and that is the EXACT source I used...

It doesn't say anything about "private citizens". It says right there ANY CITIZEN. Unless you're thinking senators aren't citizens...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There's two things you are misinformed on. First when you are elected official you are a authority of the US government you are allowed to make laws and influence the governing of the United States as senator or a congressman. Second read your source it says

directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof,

One open letter is not carrying on negotiations with a foreign government. Now if Iran was to respond and any of those 47 Congressman replied they would then be in violation of the Logan act.

. When you get into the legal issues it involves the letter of the law. And the letter of the law in the Logan act is that they must carry on in their negotiations. One open letter does not constitute a violation of that act.

I was being nice but your US news and world report source continually use the word "probably". That's not a source that's speculation.

Senator who spearheaded letter to Iran got $1 million from Kristol’s ‘Emergency Comitee for Israel’

The U.S. media have been sadly incurious about the origins of yesterday’s unprecedented Open Letter of 47 Republicans to the Iranian leadership seeking to block the president’s likely deal with Iran. The press has portrayed the letter as the work of Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a 37-year-old freshman senator so new to the limelight that the New York Times got his name wrong on first impression. But as a Times commenter writes, “Does anyone really believe the ‘freshman senator from Arkansas’ wrote the letter? No.”

The media are all over the unprecedented nature of the letter — which informs Iranian hardliners that Obama’s likely deal with Iran is a “mere executive agreement.” Chris Matthews and Chris Hayes and Michael Steele on MSNBC last night all expressed outrage or surprise. Paul Waldman at the Washington Post calls the letter “stunning” and “appalling.” But apart from a passing reference to neocons from Matthews, no one is looking under the hood.

I don’t know who wrote the letter, but I can tell you whose fingerprints are on it: the only folks who are supporting it publicly, the hard-right Israel lobby. Even as Cotton himself splutters on national television, rightwing lobby groups are the main voices out there defending the letter.

Like Bill Kristol of the Emergency Committee for Israel:

Cotton open letter: “Just so you know, we’re a constitutional democracy. Congress (or next president) has a say.” Dem response: Hysteria.

J Street’s Dylan Williams fingers Bill Kristol for writing the letter:

Who gave @SenTomCotton & others the awful idea for the Iran letter? Seems like Sarah Palin-for-VP-level bad advice doesn’t it @BillKristol ?

There’s a reason for Williams’s suspicion. Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel gave Tom Cotton nearly $1 million in his race for the Senate just five months ago, Eli Clifton reported. “Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month.” (Thanks to Kay24 in comments).

Cotton also got $165,000 from Elliott Management Paul Singer’s hedge fund. Singer is the billionaire who is trying to stop Obama’s Iran talks (Clifton’s reporting again). He funds the Israel Project too– Josh Block’s efforts.
...

If not with Iran, is the Logan Act applicable towards Israel ?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Snarl

To my mind, this issue is only tangentally related to Obama. For all that the letter was sent in opposition to his aims of gaining a deal with the Iranians, the real issue here is that the 47 signatories of this letter are prepared to violate treaty in order to get their way, which will cheapen the word of any utterance of an American ambassador or spokesperson, in the eyes of the rest of the world, ergo, the people with whom they trade, assuming that any of the signatories continue to have carreers in government going forward.

I think you misunderstand here.

This "deal" is not a treaty, though it should be.

This letter was stupid in that it was "sent" to the wrong address. However, if this were actually a treaty, then Congress would have a say in it and we wouldn't be talking about any letter.

Harte

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TrueBrit

A president can't sign a treaty without Congress and the Senate, I believe this letter is basically saying any promises by the president are empty gestures. Also, the US isn't bound by international law under the UN or the ICC, another point the letter was trying to make.

Edit: To be clear, there is currently no treaty. And this is in no way a violation of the Logan act.

Just to inform the discussion

That being said, the letter made two substantive points of constitutional law.

One was that Congress “plays a significant role in ratifying” international agreements.

In the case of a treaty, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority approval by the U.S. Senate.

In the case of executive agreements short of treaties, congressional approval requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate to become congressionally approved law.

Without that, it would be a mere executive agreement.
As such, “the next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen.” I think that accurately states the constitutional law of executive agreements.

www.southcoasttoday.com...

Did these Senators violate the Logan Act?
Without question...

The text of the act, which dates to the early years of the Republic, says: “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 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.” The law makes it a felony.

www.southcoasttoday.com...

Could or should these Senators be prosecuted under the Logan Act?

NO

Why?

Because the law has NEVER been enforced...for over two centuries...

And though it has never been repealed, it has been suggested that the Logan Act conflicts with the First Amendment

A relevant precedent is from 1975, when Sen. George McGovern was accused of violating the Logan Act by traveling to Cuba and meeting with officials there. The U.S. Department of State then concluded: “Nothing in [the Logan Act] would appear to restrict members of Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” While this ruling does not decide the current case, it is instructive precedent.

www.southcoasttoday.com...

My bottom line?

These Senators have publicly shown that they are utterly unqualified for office. They cost the USA credibility and eroded the ability of all future Presidents to negotiate internationally. This was a concerted effort on the heals of Bibi's visit to undermine the President of the United States, but they were so blind in their partisanship that they were unable to realize that they were undermining the United States as a nation.

Prosecute under the Logan Act? No ..Like to see them run out of office? Yes please.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There's two things you are misinformed on. First when you are elected official you are a authority of the US government you are allowed to make laws and influence the governing of the United States as senator or a congressman. Second read your source it says



"directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, "

One open letter is not carrying on negotiations with a foreign government. Now if Iran was to respond and any of those 47 Congressman replied they would then be in violation of the Logan act.

just a note on facts here...

You say the "One open letter is not carrying on negotiations "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

While the law you cite directly above it says.. "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

A letter to the Leaders of Iran qualifies as "any correspondence"...

You can't just change the wording of the law to "Negotiations" for your own rhetorical convenience....I mean, I guess you can...you just did, but it seems comedically dishonest when your own post refutes your claim?

originally posted by: Indigo5

just a note on facts here...

You say the "One open letter is not carrying on negotiations "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

While the law you cite directly above it says.. "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

A letter to the Leaders of Iran qualifies as "any correspondence"...

You can't just change the wording of the law to "Negotiations" for your own rhetorical convenience....I mean, I guess you can...you just did, but it seems comedically dishonest when your own post refutes your claim?

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. 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.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow 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.”

SNIP

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

Source: Breitbart
Selective prosecution? How like the Liberal mindset.

Harte

a reply to: Indigo5

And here is the legal definition of commence. It implies to carry-on and negotiation again a single open letter does not violate the Logan act unless negotiations continue.

legal definition of the word commence


So yes it is well within their rights as authorities of the US government to send a letter to another country. They do not violate the Logan act until they continue with the negotiations.

Read the source commence means to initiate action. If they do not carry on with action it was just a letter not negotiations and that is the whole essence of the Logan negotiation.

a reply to: Indigo5

You informed the discussion by being wrong?

hay apologies not to do with this thread but can an administrator please email me.

all ok to delete this post.

apologies for the intrusion.

Coomba98

a reply to: TrueBrit

A few points.

By law any treaty signed by the President MUST be ratified by Congress before it goes into effect. If not it is null and void. (IE kyoto accords -- Signed but never ratified) So they would be breaking International law only if they ratified it, which they will not. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution)

The primary reason for doing this is that the current President has been acting without the consent of Congress and shows no signs of stopping. How many current lawsuits are in the SC or on their way their due to his "Pen and Phone" acts of legislation?

I don't see this as a sign of contempt for the voters. In fact I see it the other way. During the last election the votes showed what they thought of the current regime by kicked the majority of them out. After the election, Obama said he would work with them, but so far has refused this and even vetoed bills passed with large % of support of Congress and the people. (IE Keystone).



Just my view on the subject

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

You informed the discussion by being wrong?

Not sure if this non-specific snark is meant to troll? If not, be specific.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Indigo5

And here is the legal definition of commence. It implies to carry-on and negotiation again a single open letter does not violate the Logan act unless negotiations continue.

legal definition of the word commence

Strange? Your link says nothing about "Commence" meaning to "Carry on and negotiation"???

Is it possible you don't understand the meaning of "Commence"?? Even after posting a link to the legal definition?

It very simply means to begin or originate and these Senators did in fact create and send a letter to the Leaders of Iran...they "Embarked" "Originated" "Began" "Debuted" "Launched" direct communications to undermine an ongoing negotiation with the United States of America.

Saying that Commence means Ongoing is like claiming their was not gunfire if only one person was shooting.

Frankly...it is an affront to basic logic and well...definitions.

Begin does not mean continuing. If that is not obvious, I can't help.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Indigo5

just a note on facts here...

You say the "One open letter is not carrying on negotiations "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

While the law you cite directly above it says.. "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence "

A letter to the Leaders of Iran qualifies as "any correspondence"...

You can't just change the wording of the law to "Negotiations" for your own rhetorical convenience....I mean, I guess you can...you just did, but it seems comedically dishonest when your own post refutes your claim?

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. 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.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow 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.”

SNIP

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

Source: Breitbart
Selective prosecution? How like the Liberal mindset.

Harte

Citing Briebart and obliviously retorting to imaginary posts...How typical of the Right Wing mindset...actually the mindset that leads Senators to wear that dumbfounded look when everybody asks them WTF they were thinking writing a letter to the Leader of Iran.

Now...maybe you can show me where I suggested they be prosecuted for that?

a reply to: Indigo5

Maybe you should read the link again." Set forth in operation " as in to continue, as long as they do not reply they have not entered into any negotiations with a foreign government. Read up on the Logan act and why it was originally started a senator commenced in secret negotiations with France that means back-and-forth negotiations. All the senators did now was send a letter, now if they respond to Iran I will agree with you 100% that they should be prosecuted under the Logan act but as of yet they have committed no crime.

The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

The key word is negotiations.

Again a open letter does not constitute negotiations.

a reply to: Greathouse

If we were to follow your tortured logic and definition of "commenced" as being only a two-way communication then if Iran responded to their letter then you would .."agree with you 100% that they should be prosecuted under the Logan act but as of yet they have committed no crime. "

Seems like a case of the "47 Ronin"

a reply to: Greathouse

One open letter is not carrying on negotiations with a foreign government. Now if Iran was to respond and any of those 47 Congressman replied they would then be in violation of the Logan act.

Do you know what the word correspondence means? What do you think a letter is? It's correspondence. They are in violation of the Logan act but no one gets charged for it anymore.

a reply to: buster2010

Do you know what the words carry-on mean? There's absolutely no point in discussion with you if you do not read the entire law and cherry pick one word.

I already quoted earlier what the Logan act was. Do yourself a favor and look it up a senator carried on with repeated negotiations with France in secret. He didn't send them just one letter he corresponded with them regularly.

That goes back to the word commence from the statement you're stuck on. When you commence something you continue with it. Until one of those 47 senators answers a reply from Iran they are not in violation of the Logan act.