Pelosi violated the Logan Act and committed a felony

[nutshell]

I actually read an article that mentioned a couple republicans were in syria at the same time as Pelosi since you said that. ridiculous. Syria is a registered state sponsor of terrorism and we have congresspeople visiting there like it is disneyland... I say ring them all up...

So rather than attempting a dialogue, we should what? Attack them?

 

[jonny]

This is just another example of the Democrats challenging the office of the Presidency. The PRESIDENT has always led foreign policy in this country, not the speaker of the house. If you don't like the president, you put up a viable candidate who can get elected to office and change the policies. I don't agree with not talking to our 'enemies', but I also don't agree with sending them mixed messages. Strategically, what Pelosi did puts us in a weaker position.

 

[Comprehend]

So rather than attempting a dialogue, we should what? Attack them?

uh. no. The executive branch should handle the diplomacy just like the Constitution says it should... that is why we have a state department and diplomats, etc. Legislators are supposed to legislate, the executive branch deals with foreign governments. Separation of powers and all that stuff... you know....

nice idea though...

 

[lilithu]

do you have a link to a news story or something that talks about what republicans went and what they did?

Fact finding = ok.
diplomatic talks = not ok.

Lawmakers Visit Syria to Discuss Ties

By ALBERT AJI
The Associated Press
Sunday, April 1, 2007; 7:03 PM

DAMASCUS, Syria -- U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," the statement said. "We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War," it added.

Syria's official news agency said Assad discussed U.S.-Syria relations and the latest developments in the Middle East with the representatives.

Despite the poor relationship between the two countries stemming from disagreements over Iraq and suspected Syrian support for militant groups, there have been recent calls in the U.S. to engage Syria.

Earlier this year, a bipartisan U.S. commission initially proposed by Wolf recommended the Bush administration launch new diplomatic initiatives with both Syria and Iran, something it has refused to do.

The congressional delegation met earlier in the day with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, who expressed Syria's desire to bring security and stability to the Middle East and called for dialogue with the U.S., SANA reported.

He said discussions between the two countries could produce "common stands conducive to putting an end to current crises in the region."

The visit came ahead of one on Tuesday by the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking politician to visit Damascus since relations began souring in 2003.

Pelosi, heading a congressional delegation, is on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East that includes visits to Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Her trip comes as the Democratic majority in Congress is locked in a battle with President George W. Bush over strategy in Iraq.

Washington and Damascus have not been on friendly terms in recent years. Washington has accused Syria of allowing Islamic militants to cross its border into Iraq, supporting Palestinian militants and funneling arms to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Relations deteriorated significantly in early 2005 when Washington withdrew its Syrian ambassador to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a Beirut truck bombing that his supporters blamed on Syria. Syria has denied involvement.

The U.S. delegation traveled to Jordan after their talks with Syrian officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100314.html
----------------

By your claims, it sounds like you should arrest the Republican Representatives and not Pelosi.

 

[Comprehend]

By your claims, it sounds like you should arrest the Republican Representatives and not Pelosi.

see post #54... ( I already said "ring them all up" meaning conservatives and democrats...)

 

[nutshell]

This is just another example of the Democrats challenging the office of the Presidency. The PRESIDENT has always led foreign policy in this country, not the speaker of the house. If you don't like the president, you put up a viable candidate who can get elected to office and change the policies. I don't agree with not talking to our 'enemies', but I also don't agree with sending them mixed messages. Strategically, what Pelosi did puts us in a weaker position.

Maybe.

And don't forget it wasn't just Pelosi. To avoid sounding partisan, you should include "and the Republican Congress members."

 

[nutshell]

uh. no. The executive branch should handle the diplomacy just like the Constitution says it should... that is why we have a state department and diplomats, etc. Legislators are supposed to legislate, the executive branch deals with foreign governments. Separation of powers and all that stuff... you know....

nice idea though...

I understand this, but when the executive branch fails to establish a dialogue what should happen in your opinion?

 

[Comprehend]

I understand this, but when the executive branch fails to establish a dialogue what should happen in your opinion?

Well, it is a tough situation and I understand what you are saying but I think it must be left to the branch responsible. I really think it is a separation of powers issue and the state department is responsible for that stuff. It doesn't do the US any good to be sending mixed messages. Since Syria is on the state sponsor of terrorism list, we might be giving them the cold shoulder as a policy move, if this is the case, it just looks bad when we have reps undercutting the Presidents policy.

Imagine what would/could have happened if some congressperson decided to visit Cuba during the missile crisis and tell Castro something that contradicted what Kennedy was saying. Or during the pershing missile crisis or any number of other diplomatic tight spots.

I admit that Syria is not anywhere near the seriousness of a Cuban missile crisis but my two issues are keeping the separation of powers strong and keeping a united front diplomatically. I wouldn't support congresspeople out meeting with Sudan when Clinton bombed them and I won't support Pelosi or the Republicans meeting with Syria when they are considered to be the opposition in the war on terror and aiding the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I understand this, but when the executive branch fails to establish a dialogue what should happen in your opinion?

The executive branch did not fail to establish a dialogue, they purposely ignored them and Pelosi and company screwed that up.

 

[kiwimac]

Cobblers! (and I don't simply mean shoe-makers either)

It is the job of right-thinking people to establish mechanisms for communications between states, Pelosi simply did her job as both a government representative and as a human-being.

 

[Reverend Rick]

She over stepped her authority and tried to play partisan politics in the world arena.

 

[lilithu]

She over stepped her authority and tried to play partisan politics in the world arena.

And what about the three Republicans that did the same thing?

 

[lilithu]

see post #54... ( I already said "ring them all up" meaning conservatives and democrats...)

That's nice. I'm still laughin...

 

[Reverend Rick]

And what about the three Republicans that did the same thing?

lilithu, you keep looking for hypocrisy. One day you will know me better and understand that I hold both sides to the same principle. Equal justice for all.

 

[Comprehend]

That's nice. I'm still laughin...

ok.... what for I can't imagine but go ahead... you don't pay attention to the posts and then ignore them when they are pointed out to you... interesting way to debate.

 

[nutshell]

lilithu, you keep looking for hypocrisy. One day you will know me better and understand that I hold both sides to the same principle. Equal justice for all.

You only mention Pelosi and accuse her of partisan politics.

Now you say you hold both sides to the same principle.

If that's true, why only mention the Speaker and talk about partisan politics?

 

[Reverend Rick]

You only mention Pelosi and accuse her of partisan politics.

Now you say you hold both sides to the same principle.

If that's true, why only mention the Speaker and talk about partisan politics?

Re read some of my posts. I say "Pelosi and company" several times. The thread is about Pelosi however.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

A key point seems to have been overlooked here.

From wikipedia:

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.​

Also, if you take a look at the rest of that article, the implications may well be a lot heavier for Bush's actions over the course of the last six years, than this one single circumstance by Pelosi.

 

[Mathematician]

A key point seems to have been overlooked here.

From wikipedia:

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.​

Also, if you take a look at the rest of that article, the implications may well be a lot heavier for Bush's actions over the course of the last six years, than this one single circumstance by Pelosi.

Great post.

 

[Comprehend]

A key point seems to have been overlooked here.

From wikipedia:

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.​

​

Right... how is that any different from what has been said all along? The whole point is that Pelosi and the other congresspeople were there attempting to meddle is Executive branch duties... what legislative duty would you imagine they were performing?

Also, if you take a look at the rest of that article, the implications may well be a lot heavier for Bush's actions over the course of the last six years, than this one single circumstance by Pelosi.

uh. nope. Bush is the head of the executive branch, he has the authority to conduct his diplomacy anyway he wants. It is literally impossible for Bush to violate the logan act while he is president.

I think you may be a little confused...