Poll: Should the 47 Republican Senators who signed onto the Iraq letter

[cali]

be prosecuted?

and just to make it clear where I stand, I think it would be disastrous; precipitating a constitutional crisis.

In the past half century, it's largely been democrats who have been threatened by the Logan Act:

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.[10]

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.[2]

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.[11] The amendment was not adopted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes
	12 (71%)
	no
	5 (29%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Sigh

[cali]

6. expressive but hardly elucidating

[Jefferson23]

2. No. I will add their moves which should not be separated from the invite to Netanyahu

does not have to be illegal to be wrong and dangerous.

snip*The letter has provoked the charge of “treason” against the signers and a demand for charges against them for negotiating with a foreign government in violation of the Logan Act. In a little over 24 hours, more than 200,000 people had signed a petition on the White House website calling such charges to be filed.

But although that route may seem satisfying at first thought, it is problematic for both legal and political reasons. The Logan Act was passed in 1799, and has never been used successfully to convict anyone, mainly because it was written more than a century before US courts created legal standards for the protection of first amendment speech rights. And it is unclear whether the Logan Act was even meant to apply to members of Congress anyway.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/03/13/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter

[Blue_In_AK]

3. You may be right, but

I'm pretty sick of politicians (and banksters, etc.) never having to answer for their crimes and stupidity.

[Panich52]

46. I'm pretty much w/ you on that point.Repubs have pushed the limits of legality and respect regarding

their duties and the presidency for way too long. It started while Clinton was in White House ($billions to impeach over him lying about a blow job?!), they neglected being watchdofs while Shrub was POTUS, and started up again the night Obama was elected. It's way past tine they were called to task f/ their legal disrespect.

My only reservation is that it would end up in a SCOTUS w/ a majority who has just as little respect f/ law or protocol as congressional (and gubernatorial) Repubs.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. Of course I meant banksters, not bannisters.

Stupid autocorrect.

[name not needed]

4. A lame duck President directing an unpopular Attorney General to indict half the Senate.

Yeah, that'll end well.

[avebury]

5. Absolutely yes!

I am so ready for a Constitutional crisis. What we have now is a slow strangulation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and American Civil Liberties. We can continue down the path of a slow but inevitable death of the Country which the Founding Fathers created and probably be deemed an international threat worldwide or we can take the idiots head on in an all out internal battle.

If we are not willing to fight for the country founded by our ancestors, then we might as well turn the keys to the country over to these idiots and be done with it. I really do not think that there is any prayer of a chance of turning things around until we hit total rock bottom.

[cali]

7. So if it was say 47 dems who wrote a letter

and a republican president, you'd still be for it.

Fascistic moves are antithetical to improving.... anything.

[Rex]

9. But it wasn't 47 dems that wrote a letter to Iran. People can pretend that is an issue

if they want to. If a politician undermines the authority of the POTUS during a time of war, they should be held accountable. No matter what party.

[GGJohn]

10. But we're not at war with Iran, and the Logan Act is unconstitutional. eom.

[Rex]

12. We are at war with their neighbor did you forget? And the letter can have untold

repercussions on our troops. I know only a few people care enough about that to make it an issue. The rest of you are bending over backwards to defend the GOP and it is really cute. But sad too.

[GGJohn]

14. Again, we're not at war with Iran,

and informing you that the Logan Act is unconstitutional is NOT defending the GOP, so take that crap elsewhere.

[Rex]

15. Right. Nice try. Again.

You are defending 47 republicans that tried to undermine Obama and the UNs talks with Iran WHILE we are at war. I hope that makes you feel better.

[GGJohn]

19. Right. Nice try. Again,

informing you that the Logan Act is unconstitutional is NOT defending the 47 repub. Senators.
I do hope you now understand how stupid you're accusation is.

[Rex]

23. See post #22

[GGJohn]

24. See post #19.

[cali]

20. yeah. right. this is about defending the 47 republicans. Fail. Again

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is utterly blind to the repercussions.

[Rex]

22. I know it is. Thanks for admitting it.

There is no other reason to do so.

[cali]

26. gee. you seem not to understand simple English.

No wonder you're accruing so much FAIL.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. That is why I sighed...real clear to me too

[onenote]

50. We were as much "at war" with the Sandanistas when the Dear Comandante letter

was sent to Ortega in an attempt to go around Reagan's pro-contra policy. While you and I may agree that Reagan's policy was boneheaded, the reality is that after making some noise, the repubs backed down and admitted that the letter (which actually was sent to Ortega and which invited him to discuss matters directly with the members of Congress) was not a Logan Act violation. Which was the correct legal ruling given the history of the law and the State Department's understanding of it as not applying to members of Congress.

[cali]

11. ack. that you think that, is frightening. so the dems who were vocal in opposition

to the Iraq War should have been prosecuted for "undermining the authority of the POTUS during a time of war"? And as someone else pointed out we are NOT at war with Iran. Hey maybe Jesse Jackson and George McGovern should have been prosecuted too.

[Rex]

13. Vocal? Did 47 dems send a letter to Saddam Hussein trying to undermine Bush in Iraq?

You are cute pretending being vocal and sending a formal letter from Congress is the same thing.

Nice try cali.

[cali]

17. I'm simply asking you to reflect on a hypothetical that is most certainly not

outside the realm of possibility. And sorry but there's little difference between sending a formal letter and making a formal speech on the floor.

Not to mention that it's unlikely that the Logan Act is applicable to members of Congress.

[Rex]

21. There is a HUGE difference between trying to undermine the POTUS during negotiations with Iran

AND...gosh...NO Dem trying to undermine Bush in Iraq and some even voting FOR war with Iraq!

Seriously, the 47 traitors need to be held accountable. Keep defending them or not, doesn't really matter anymore.

They are traitors in the eyes of the world. I guess that will have to do.

[cali]

25. You now think you can speak for the rest of the world? wow.

And seriously, do you not understand what would happen if they were prosecuted? First of all, it would be thrown out in record time. Secondly, democrats would be fucked in years to come. Thirdly, it becomes a real possibility that the President would be impeached. Nothing good would come of this fascist move.

[GGJohn]

33. You sling that word traitor rather loosly. eom.

[avebury]

28. Bonehead moves seem to be consistently

committed by Republicans and Tea Partiers. I have not seen Democrats pull such stupid moves and if I did I would be really irritated to say the least. Democratic bonehead moves tend to occur on an individualized basis as one Democrat does something stupid like Anthony Weiner. Republicans and Tea Partiers have more of a pack mentality of destruction.

The problem goes well beyond the 47 letter and Netanyahu's speech to the Congress. The Republicans and Tea Partiers continue to flaunt their total disregard of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Liberties, Voters Rights, Women's Rights, and so on and so on. This has been going of for far too long and the Democrats just sit back and go Tsk Tsk, shaking their heads as the children misbehave.

I see this all the time in Oklahoma state politics and the OK State Legislature. This state is so doomed as there is no issue unconstitutional enough or too stupid for them to pass a law and then have the State AG defend the lunacy in court (at tax payer expense of course). And this is just one state. We see what is going on within a whole lot of other states. And we see what is going on within Congress.

We have long passed any chance of the Democratic Party being able to turn things around because the inmates have controlled the asylum far too long. It is not a matter of if but when the children manage to sink this country. And historically, success, control and power shifts from one entity to another every so many years. Our time has passed and we are on the inevitable downward trend.

[cali]

34. I can get your frustrated and your perspective is at least in part informed by your living in

Oklahoma, but this is a really undemocratic and likely unconstitutional thing to do. I may hate it, but republicans have every right CONSTITUTIONALLY, to propose legislation- even if it's legislation I despise and think is unconstitutional- that gets hashed out in the courts. They have the right to oppose women's rights, etc

[avebury]

38. But it pisses people off to know that their tax dollars are

wasted defending legislation that the Legislators know will never survive a court challenge. The Ten Commandment Monument bill had, built in it, a legal defense fund. Now I don't know about you, but if you have to build a legal defense fund into a bill, that should be a pretty clear indication that you should not be passing that bill in the first place.

It an oxymoron to say that they have the constitutional right to pass unconstitutional laws. I am fed up with Democrats not standing up to the Republicans and calling them out on their crap. A few do must most don't. As a result, the Republicans and Tea Partiers have a feeling of invincibility and they just keep getting worse and worse.

[GGJohn]

8. As another member said,

A lame duck president and an unpopular AG charging half the Senate with the unconstitutional Logan Act would not end well for the Democrats.

[kajsa williams]

49. Like, like, like Avebury's comment.

Where's the "like" button. I think it's time for a constitutional crisis too. The senators aren't guilty of treason but they ARE guilty of mutinous behavior. Sabotaging international nuclear talks is not politics as usual.

We are ALREADY HAVING a constitutional crisis. Let's face facts.

[tritsofme]

16. The Logan Act is a red herring These senators likely have full immunity under the Speech and Debate

clause of the Constitution. Regardless of the fact that the Logan Act is more than likely unconstitutional, senators or congressmen cannot be prosecuted for their official acts as lawmakers.

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is honorable or right. This is the message some here seem to struggle with.

[cali]

18. thanks.

[samsingh]

29. yes - it would show the repugs that we can't be pushed around

but many democrats will find all sorts of reasons to look the other way.

[hrmjustin]

30. No not really but it is nice to watch the bastards squirm.

[onenote]

39. squirm? i hardly think so.

Going after them will make them martyrs to the right. And once the charges are dismissed they'd be fucking heroes to the right.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. Pelosi: My trip to Syria in 2007 was nothing like the GOP's Iran letter

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/235455-pelosi-my-trip-to-syria-was-nothing-like-the-gops-iran-letter

The office of the House minority leader issued a scathing statement Wednesday night saying her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was part of a bipartisan effort

bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort
bipartisan effort

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. be traded to Iran?

Yes, for a souvenir postcard in exchange.

[cpwm17]

35. You have a major one-letter typo in the title

The letter is probably not illegal, though that determination is well above my pay-grade.

I think they are traitors in reality, though not according to the law.

[YarnAddict]

36. I see something like this, and I think

of that pic of the frog extending his middle finger to the large bird who is about to eat him, with the caption, "The last great act of defiance."

We got our asses handed to us in the last election. It was baaaaaaaaaaaad. Don't you remember?? If you want to finish off the Democratic Party forever, start locking up the people who were elected by the voters to represent them.

Yeah, that's the ticket!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Like the Netanyahu speech, the letter was a PR stunt that blew up in their faces.

I also feel that any effort to prosecute them for it would be a PR stunt that would blow up in our faces. I'm not a legal scholar but I have a strong feeling that prosecution would end up in a loss or a stalemate serving no purpose.

They are busily making asses of themselves in public view. I think it safe to presume that they will continue to do so without our interference.

[GGJohn]

41. Yup, as the saying goes,

Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.

[BillZBubb]

40. Look, the repubs IMPEACHED! Clinton for a BJ.

Not much happened to them. They survived the stupidity and the voters quickly forgot.

Democrats, as always, are too craven to play hardball politics.

If even a remotely plausible case exists PROSECUTE. Let the courts sort it out.

[GGJohn]

45. And when it's thrown out of court as unconstitutional, then what? eom.

[BillZBubb]

47. This is politics. It doesn't matter what the courts do.

What matters is that the repubs are tarred with their action for as long as possible. We would control the debate, not them. That's hardball politics, not the usual Democratic pusillanimous politics of just letting it go.

[customerserviceguy]

42. Doesn't make any difference to me

whether they addressed that letter to an ayatollah, or the President, or to the editor, or to whom it may concern. It was published, and that makes it 100% free speech fully protected from prosecution by our laws. Nobody went behind anybody's back in this caper.

[Kingofalldems]

43. RW talking points about Nancy Pelosi.

The republican media blatherers jumped on the Pelosi nonsense earlier this week.
Now you.

[cali]

51. uh, no. I posted a wiki article about the Logan Act and how it's been used to make a point

that it has largely been wielded against dems. It's a bullshit unconstitutional law.

[Kingofalldems]

44. Pass. Fake poll in my opinion.