Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 08:02 AM Mar 2015

What an 18th century non-war with France has to do with the Senate’s letter to Iran (Logan Act)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/what-an-18th-century-non-war-with-france-has-to-do-with-the-senates-letter-to-iran/

Technically, which is to say, legally, you and I are not allowed to travel to Tehran to try to work out a deal between the United States and Iran. There are a lot of reasons why that prohibition makes sense; your ability to gain an audience with the country's leaders being the least of the many difficulties.

But after a doctor named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to try to prevent war between our two countries, it became illegal for anyone to freelance in that capacity. The law has never been enforced, but it has a habit of popping into the political conversation when someone -- say, most of the Republican conference in the Senate -- tries to influence foreign relations, say, by sending a letter to the Iranian opposition. Which, you're probably aware, has happened.

At the time of Logan's trip, the United States and France were building toward a war, as Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, explained to me by phone. Logan went to France after an official delegation from the United States had been met with demands from anonymous French emissaries for a bribe, an incident known as the XYZ Affair. The Federalist Party of President John Adams was advocating for war, but Logan's visit prompted France to take some actions that defused the situation. Disappointment in Adams's subsequent ramping down of tensions led to the act that bears Logan's name.

As originally drafted, the Logan Act (as it is known) prohibits:

Any unauthorized United States citizen to carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government with an intent to influence its measures or conduct in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.


more at link
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What an 18th century non-war with France has to do with the Senate’s letter to Iran (Logan Act) (Original Post) steve2470 Mar 2015 OP
so the question is - who goes after the 47 america-haters under the logan act Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #1
So Logan tried to (did) prevent a war, and the Republicans are trying to start one... Thor_MN Mar 2015 #2
bump cuz it's timely nt steve2470 Mar 2015 #3
Kick 'cause it's important! mahalo steve Cha Mar 2015 #4
yep mahalo! nt steve2470 Mar 2015 #6
Iran/Contra and the October surprise proved the law worthless Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #5
Republicans were talking about the same thing when Pelosi met with Assad in 2007 JonLP24 Mar 2015 #7
 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
2. So Logan tried to (did) prevent a war, and the Republicans are trying to start one...
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 08:52 AM
Mar 2015

Which is more seditious?

As it stands, The Logan Act is law and the 47 senators have clearly broken it. It open for debate if the Supreme (especially this Supreme) Court would uphold it, but this is beyond a doubt more worthy of an investigation/trial than Ken Starr's and Issa's witch hunts.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
7. Republicans were talking about the same thing when Pelosi met with Assad in 2007
Tue Mar 10, 2015, 02:35 PM
Mar 2015

A Republican congressman even accused her of breaking the Logan Act

To see how thoroughly Democrats have adopted the GOP’s Bush-era authoritarian rhetoric about not “undermining the commander-in-chief,” and to see how craven is GOP behavior now on Iran, just look at what was being said in 2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

I don't know if Pelosi is guilty or not or whether the Republicans. It would be really hard to argue anything in the letter, an attorney could easily get a not guilty verdict, I imagine. I can just think of far, far worse criminals I'd rather go after or charge.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What an 18th century non-...