Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections
- Thread starter RERICK
- Start date
When people talk things get solved. I don't agree with a lot of people on this site, but if we talked long enough I'm sure we would agree on a lot of issues. By talking you find points of agreement and use them to work towards solutions. If their were not any dissenters on this site it would be really boring and we would have even less understanding of each others reasoning.
I dont recall us ever being at war with Iran. Hostage situations and diplomacy are different than warfare. You said that you keep the lines of dialog open even if actively at war with a country. I disagree (assuming that surrender doesn't qualify as dialogue). There isn't anything that Reagan did that would suggest he would disagree with me either.
According to International Law, the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was warranted after the existing government of Saddam Hussein violated the Treaty he signed. That the UN, and Clinton, dithered affects the intent, and letter, of the law in no way.
As there are no ground, sea, or air forces in combat with Syria is a pretty good sign that we really aren't at war with them. There is nothing under law that requires continuous dialog with any country.
As there are no ground, sea, or air forces in combat with Syria is a pretty good sign that we really aren't at war with them. There is nothing under law that requires continuous dialog with any country.
Last edited:
I disagree. They are just measures of degree. The key consideration is that there is a conflict needing resolution.
Surrender is simply a special case of dialog where leverage on one side is pretty much destroyed. Reagan was willing to negotiate with the "enemy" or those that would be aligned with the "enemy" which shows a temperament towards understanding the value of dialog and open lines of communication. Certainly better than your Chamberlain dig who's infractions of appeasement were clearly BEFORE war against Germany was declared.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55067
Pelosi's Syria diplomacy a felony?
Former State Department official sees possible violation of Logan Act
Posted: April 6, 2007
12:30 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus this week to discuss foreign policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad – against the wishes of President Bush – might be a felony under the Logan Act, according to a former State Department official.
The Logan Act, initiated by President John Adams in 1798, makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States," points out Robert F. Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Turner says the Bush administration "isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue."
"Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back," suggests Turner, who served in the Reagan administration in 1984-85 and also is a former chairman of the American Bar Association standing committee on law and national security.
Pelosi told reporters that during her talks Wednesday with Assad she "determined that the road to Damascus is the road to peace."
"We came in friendship, hope," she said.
The House speaker also said she conveyed an Israeli message to Assad that the Jewish state was ready to resume peace talks. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quickly issued a denial, however, stating Israel's policy toward Syria has not changed.
As WND reported, members of terrorist organizations whose top leaders live in Syria called Pelosi's Damascus visit "brave" and "very appreciated," saying it could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups."
The Logan Act was requested by Adams after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries, Turner points out. Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained the object was "to punish a crime" arising "from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
Turner says that while Pelosi certainly is not the first member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, "her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."
A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president.
"Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism," Turner says. "It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad."
Turner concludes: "The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to [flout] the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."
Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. Congressional offices are closed today for the Easter holiday weekend.
badbob
Pelosi's Syria diplomacy a felony?
Former State Department official sees possible violation of Logan Act
Posted: April 6, 2007
12:30 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus this week to discuss foreign policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad – against the wishes of President Bush – might be a felony under the Logan Act, according to a former State Department official.
The Logan Act, initiated by President John Adams in 1798, makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States," points out Robert F. Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Turner says the Bush administration "isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue."
"Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back," suggests Turner, who served in the Reagan administration in 1984-85 and also is a former chairman of the American Bar Association standing committee on law and national security.
Pelosi told reporters that during her talks Wednesday with Assad she "determined that the road to Damascus is the road to peace."
"We came in friendship, hope," she said.
The House speaker also said she conveyed an Israeli message to Assad that the Jewish state was ready to resume peace talks. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quickly issued a denial, however, stating Israel's policy toward Syria has not changed.
As WND reported, members of terrorist organizations whose top leaders live in Syria called Pelosi's Damascus visit "brave" and "very appreciated," saying it could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups."
The Logan Act was requested by Adams after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries, Turner points out. Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained the object was "to punish a crime" arising "from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
Turner says that while Pelosi certainly is not the first member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, "her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."
A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president.
"Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism," Turner says. "It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad."
Turner concludes: "The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to [flout] the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."
Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. Congressional offices are closed today for the Easter holiday weekend.
badbob
Wasnt Pelosi elected to her post ( with only the Prez and VP having higher authority.) and as such wouldnt that be considered authorization?
Either way, IMO, the bush camp is just trying to punish her for going against their wishes.
If we can avoid further escalation of conflict by engaging in dialog, how can that be a bad thing?
I may not agree with her politics but I give her credit for standing up for her convictions; and at least she wasnt trying to decieve the nation with lies and mi-struths like the current admin.
Either way, IMO, the bush camp is just trying to punish her for going against their wishes.
If we can avoid further escalation of conflict by engaging in dialog, how can that be a bad thing?
I may not agree with her politics but I give her credit for standing up for her convictions; and at least she wasnt trying to decieve the nation with lies and mi-struths like the current admin.
Wildalaska
Moderator
So?
Wildandtheproblemis?Alaska
re: WorldNetDaily.com: hahahahha, what was private about this trip? Hey, the state department was at every meeting with Pelosi, I'm sure there is tons of evidence and transcripts available to the white house.
I wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for an indictment.
On a side note, isn't it about time for a "You're doing a heckuva job, Condie"
I wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for an indictment.
On a side note, isn't it about time for a "You're doing a heckuva job, Condie"
Well, where to begin. I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything, I don't care! I only posted the article, and WND only quoted somebody's statements. I, personally, am critical of the Bush administration, but I'm not nieve enough to believe that Polosi is doing anything but pushing a political agenda. The American public is just being played by the Dems and Reps. There is no difference.
badbob
What are the motivations of the republicans that accompanied her? (not even talking about the groups both before and after her trip) It is the fault of the people complaining only about Pelosi that is making this partisan politics.
Of course, apparently her political agenda is in line with Bush's regarding Israel. Though I believe that this WAS just a fact finding trip and she was given a message to deliver.
So, Mr "I am not naive enough", just what exactly IS Pelosi's political agenda?
If we were at war with Iran
during the Reagan years, wouldn't that make selling them weapons an act of treason??
As to Pelosi, well, she might do some good, and she certainly can't harm our relations with Syria... because they can't get much worse, short of an actual shooting war.
Like it or not, they are a major power in a region where we have one vital national interest. You know, that nasty, stinky black goo that runs our entire economy.
When it comes to our relations with any Middle East country, that's the only lens I use. Does a given action hurt or help us in obtaining the only resource that part of the world has that we need?
Granted, Syria has little or no oil. But they are a player, and their opinion carries weight with states who do have it.
Have they opposed Israel? Yes. Even fought (and lost) a war with them a few years back. Their record in Lebanon is a crying shame as well. But their issues with the Israelis are not our problem, and from the perspective of American interests, Lebanon doesn't matter much.
The real question for us is, do we gain more than we lose by talking to the Syrians? I think we do.
As to Pelosi's legal status, I'd think that the State Department giving her an official communication to give to President Assad answers that question. She's broken no law that I can see. Whether her trip does us any good remains to be seen, but the current Bush policy hasn't accomplished anything anyway, so it'd hard to see how she can do any damage.
Not a big deal.
--Shannon
during the Reagan years, wouldn't that make selling them weapons an act of treason??
As to Pelosi, well, she might do some good, and she certainly can't harm our relations with Syria... because they can't get much worse, short of an actual shooting war.
Like it or not, they are a major power in a region where we have one vital national interest. You know, that nasty, stinky black goo that runs our entire economy.
When it comes to our relations with any Middle East country, that's the only lens I use. Does a given action hurt or help us in obtaining the only resource that part of the world has that we need?
Granted, Syria has little or no oil. But they are a player, and their opinion carries weight with states who do have it.
Have they opposed Israel? Yes. Even fought (and lost) a war with them a few years back. Their record in Lebanon is a crying shame as well. But their issues with the Israelis are not our problem, and from the perspective of American interests, Lebanon doesn't matter much.
The real question for us is, do we gain more than we lose by talking to the Syrians? I think we do.
As to Pelosi's legal status, I'd think that the State Department giving her an official communication to give to President Assad answers that question. She's broken no law that I can see. Whether her trip does us any good remains to be seen, but the current Bush policy hasn't accomplished anything anyway, so it'd hard to see how she can do any damage.
Not a big deal.
--Shannon
DonR101395
New member
That's akin to a bank robber's actions being legal because the bank security guard gave him a note to give to the bank president.
Usually. Unless your opponent is merely using the talks to stall for time while they build their forces, launch some attack or create a nuclear deterrent. For references of each of these see historical references to Neville Chamberlain v. Germany, Ho Chi Mihn v. Paris Peace talks; Pearl Harbor; Soviet Union's Iron Curtain (ref: 1949) and Iran.
The problem with many countries governed by Muslim "fundamentalists" is that they have a religious history that indicates it is not improper to lie to "infidels". Yassir Arafat, as head of the PLO, constantly told the west what they wanted to hear and even made agreements that he never intended to honor, citing this philosophy. Remember, diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie", whilst you find a rock.
Oh puhleeze. That sounds just like the Democrat interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. "I got elected as speaker of the house, so that means I can usurp executive powers too, because I'm 3rd in line to the white house."
RTFM - or RTFC -- Read The Friggin' Constitution. The president has the power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 Senate approval. It does NOT authorize members of the Legislative or Judicial branches to engage in foreign diplomacy.
Some folks here have commented about the intelligence (or lack thereof) of GW and how it embarasses our country. Yet Pelosi is caught seriously distorting the truth by saying she had an Israeli message and peace talks are literally ready to begin ... This makes Pelosi about as credible as Cindy "Sparky" Sheehan.
(SecDef; if you can post from Salon.com as a valid reference, then posts from WND are no less laughable).
I wasn't trying to impinge the source, I was trying to be clear that I was referring to that post in particular.
Sorry for the confusion.
I wouldn't normally link to salon, but the reference was for an opinion piece, not news, so I don't feel too bad.
Errr, there was definitely no treaty made.
If you are making the argument that congress should not be talking to Syria (as a muslim nation or otherwise), because they have no right, then why of all the congressmen recently in Syria (which apparently is an ever increasing number) is there a problem with only ONE name? Isn't the argument strengthened by naming everyone in the group, regardless of position or party affiliation?
Well, the Columbus Dispatch has an interesting article. Intriguing quote from Congressman Hobson:
Sorry for the confusion.
I wouldn't normally link to salon, but the reference was for an opinion piece, not news, so I don't feel too bad.
Errr, there was definitely no treaty made.
If you are making the argument that congress should not be talking to Syria (as a muslim nation or otherwise), because they have no right, then why of all the congressmen recently in Syria (which apparently is an ever increasing number) is there a problem with only ONE name? Isn't the argument strengthened by naming everyone in the group, regardless of position or party affiliation?
Well, the Columbus Dispatch has an interesting article. Intriguing quote from Congressman Hobson:
Last edited: