Folks have short memories. Pelosi went to Syria and we heard all manner of Logan Act hue and cry. Before that, there was the Hastert and Colombia folderol.
Nobody's ever been jailed for violating the Logan Act. Nobody ever will.
It sorta is depending how serious you take it, I mean what would they be saying if the Democratic senators sent a letter to Russia while Reagan was working a Nuke deal during the cold war. It really really makes the US look stupid.
I mean, they are loudly and deliberately trying to undermine Obama's foreign policy. It's not so much that it's illegal as I'm angry that they're being actively incompetent at actually governing.
It really depends on the content of the contact and whether or not the activity was sanctioned by the executive branch. A politician going on TV and asked to weigh in on an international incident could run afoul of the Logan Act.
I don't see a big deal when some Senators pipe up to say, "yo, President not omnipotent. We have a role to play too!" The PM visit recently sounds more like a Logan Act violation candidate than this is.
Maybe not strictly republicans, but right-wing at the least - Our prime minister's response to a UN report detailing how our treatment of refugees violates Human rights laws: "I really think Australians are sick of being lectured to by the United Nations, particularly given that we have stopped the boats, and by stopping the boats we have ended the deaths at sea."
Which, by the way, they haven't really. They're just catching and detaining them.
Maybe not strictly republicans, but right-wing at the least - Our prime minister's response to a UN report detailing how our treatment of refugees violates Human rights laws: "I really think Australians are sick of being lectured to by the United Nations, particularly given that we have stopped the boats, and by stopping the boats we have ended the deaths at sea."
Which, by the way, they haven't really. They're just catching and detaining them.
He really likes to tell everyone about "stopping the boats".
Isn't he an immigrant himself? He's English, right?
Yeah but refugees are sectioned off in a separate area to privileged British immigrants. Yet he uses his background to try to appeal for the immigrant vote too which worryingly he got some of last election.
Isn't he an immigrant himself? He's English, right?
Yeah but refugees are sectioned off in a separate area to privileged British immigrants. Yet he uses his background to try to appeal for the immigrant vote too which worryingly he got some of last election.
Isn't he an immigrant himself? He's English, right?
Yeah but refugees are sectioned off in a separate area to privileged British immigrants. Yet he uses his background to try to appeal for the immigrant vote too which worryingly he got some of last election.
White people don't count, just like in America.
By horrible coincidence, just today he also defended a government plan to close 150+ remote Aboriginal communities, saying that taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to fund their "Lifestyle choices." I've been out to some those communities in my time, and believe me, it's not a fucking lifestyle choice.
He's also previously claimed that Australia was "Nothing but bush" and "unsettled" before the English arrived, which he also went on to call "a form of investment in the country."
It would be a funnier thing to say if it didn't appear to be literally true.
France may be the butt of many jokes but when I heard about their policy of Laïcité ... Well, let's just say that my respect for them increased. I think the US needs to embrace this interpretation of the first amendment.
Well, it is an unprecedented attempt to undermine presidential authority, with no basis in international or even U.S. domestic law whatsoever, purely motivated by partisan zeal to appeal to an extremist demographic. And while it's not treason, it is still a preposterous act.
This is possibly the most recent incident that is nearly the same activity. There are multiple cases of Congress members meeting directly with foreign heads of state Pelosi with Assad in 2007 and a few Democrats went to Iraq in 2002.
Like the Nancy Pelosi trip which took place while there was no negotiations with Syria (and the article neglects the numerous other trips by Republicans during that time)
Did this happen during active negotiations with Nicaragua?
It should also be noted that that letter appears to be in support of the same goals as the executive branch of the government was attempting to achieve, rather than a blatant attempt to undermine those goals.
My quibble is with treason and unprecedented. You will find no argument for stupid, misguided, etc.
I'm not either, I'm actually supporting your argument that it's not unprecedented.
It's just interesting that the other examples are either a way smaller group of house reps doing something or one senator. Not the actions of almost half the governing body.
I know, I just wanted to clarify that my disagreement over "OMG UNPRECEDENTED TREASON" does not coincide with support for what the Republican Senators did. I think what they did was stupid and childish.
§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection treason? He wouldn't be aiding a foreign power against the US but it would certainly count as an insurrection against the Senate.
Edit: are the sedition laws in title 18 still enforceable?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
That bit about 'by force prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law' sounds like the day to day fights between the legislative and executive branch.
Comments
Nobody's ever been jailed for violating the Logan Act. Nobody ever will.
The letter should have been sent to Obama.
I don't see a big deal when some Senators pipe up to say, "yo, President not omnipotent. We have a role to play too!" The PM visit recently sounds more like a Logan Act violation candidate than this is.
Which, by the way, they haven't really. They're just catching and detaining them.
He's also previously claimed that Australia was "Nothing but bush" and "unsettled" before the English arrived, which he also went on to call "a form of investment in the country."
It would be a funnier thing to say if it didn't appear to be literally true.
In any case. did anybody read the response by the Iranian foreign minister? No wonder they've been backpedalling and trying the "it was all a joke" defense.
Edit:
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html?smid=tw-share
This is possibly the most recent incident that is nearly the same activity. There are multiple cases of Congress members meeting directly with foreign heads of state Pelosi with Assad in 2007 and a few Democrats went to Iraq in 2002.
here ya go, though from a quick read of other times democrats got involved........I think a bunch of them are reaching or play differently.
Like the Nancy Pelosi trip which took place while there was no negotiations with Syria (and the article neglects the numerous other trips by Republicans during that time)
It should also be noted that that letter appears to be in support of the same goals as the executive branch of the government was attempting to achieve, rather than a blatant attempt to undermine those goals.
It's just interesting that the other examples are either a way smaller group of house reps doing something or one senator. Not the actions of almost half the governing body.
Edit: are the sedition laws in title 18 still enforceable? That bit about 'by force prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law' sounds like the day to day fights between the legislative and executive branch.