A Call For Hearings Into Senator Barack Obama's Violation Of The Logan Act

[stephanie]

Write a Letter to Congress : 843 Letters Sent So Far
We demand that Congress open hearings on Senator Barack Obama's potential violations of the Logan Act.



On at least two separate occasions, as documented by NBC and The New York Post, Senator Barack Obama has attempted to negotiate a delay to U.S. negotiations with Iraq until after the elections.



We feel this is an egregious abuse of his position and in violation of the Logan Act, which by historical judicial interpretation prevents anyone, including members of Congress, from interfering with U.S. negotiations.

First, Enter Your Zip Code to Look Up Your Representatives
Zip Code:

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

[Yurt]

dems have all denied this, head in sand

[namvet]

while we're at it throw that SOB Carter in to !!!!!!!!!!!!

[red states rule]

Obama and Biden - what a pair!!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/9/G/2/obama-dumb-and-dumber.jpg

[Immanuel]

Doesn't the Logan Act (I read it in another thread) speak of acts of private citizens without the approval of the U.S. government?

The fact that Senator Obama is in fact, (how he got there I will never understand) a U.S. Senator means to me that 1) he is not a private citizen and 2) he had approval of the government to proceed as he did.

As for Carter... and then we'd probably have to include Clinton, Bush I as well... it appears to me that they seem to have our government's approval to perform at least humanitarian missions abroad.

If that is the case, then it would seem that the efforts here would be nothing more than spinning your wheels in mud.

Immie

PS I am not excusing the dispicable act of Senator Obama to delay negotiations for the return of our troops. His playing politics with this issue is just plain treason if you ask me.

[PostmodernProphet]

Doesn't the Logan Act (I read it in another thread) speak of acts of private citizens without the approval of the U.S. government?

The fact that Senator Obama is in fact, (how he got there I will never understand) a U.S. Senator means to me that 1) he is not a private citizen and 2) he had approval of the government to proceed as he did.

As for Carter... and then we'd probably have to include Clinton, Bush I as well... it appears to me that they seem to have our government's approval to perform at least humanitarian missions abroad.

If that is the case, then it would seem that the efforts here would be nothing more than spinning your wheels in mud.

Immie

PS I am not excusing the dispicable act of Senator Obama to delay negotiations for the return of our troops. His playing politics with this issue is just plain treason if you ask me.


§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

talks about unauthorized persons, not private citizens....

[Immanuel]

talks about unauthorized persons, not private citizens....

Okay, not that significant of a difference as far as I can see. Senator Obama is still a Senator and part of the government. Does it state that the executive branch must give theauthorization?

Just asking questions, not stating facts except the undeniable fact that the Senator is in fact a Senator.

Immie

[red states rule]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/m/G/2/obama-46-virgin.jpg

[Yurt]

Okay, not that significant of a difference as far as I can see. Senator Obama is still a Senator and part of the government. Does it state that the executive branch must give theauthorization?

Just asking questions, not stating facts except the undeniable fact that the Senator is in fact a Senator.

Immie

i could be wrong, but i believe the logan act was passed because a senator went to a foreign country and disrupted negotiations or something that the US was involved with.

[Yurt]

i looked it up, the guy was a legislator, later became senator and here is an interesting tid bit from wiki:


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.[5]

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.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[hjmick]

i could be wrong, but i believe the logan act was passed because a senator went to a foreign country and disrupted negotiations or something that the US was involved with.

It was passed during John Adams' Presidency. It is named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator, and later US Senator, and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.

[Immanuel]

i could be wrong, but i believe the logan act was passed because a senator went to a foreign country and disrupted negotiations or something that the US was involved with.


i looked it up, the guy was a legislator, later became senator and here is an interesting tid bit from wiki:


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

Thanks for the info Yurt. So, my understanding is that Senator's Sparkman and McGovern were found not to have been in violation of the act, basically, because they were not negotiating for the U.S. and made it clear that they weren't. However, it does not mean that a Senator could not be charged with violating the act.

As for Senator Obama, then maybe this is something to look into. The possibility that he has interfered in government negotiations may then be considered in violation of the act?

Immie

[Yurt]

Thanks for the info Yurt. So, my understanding is that Senator's Sparkman and McGovern were found not to have been in violation of the act, basically, because they were not negotiating for the U.S. and made it clear that they weren't. However, it does not mean that a Senator could not be charged with violating the act.

As for Senator Obama, then maybe this is something to look into. The possibility that he has interfered in government negotiations may then be considered in violation of the act?

Immie

that is how i view it. the two senators made it clear they weren't acting for the US and the executive branch knew of thier activities. somehow i do not believe those facts match obama at all. i highly doubt though it will be looked at all as you can see from that link, virtually no one ever gets truly charged with it and the left would simply call it a witch hunt etc... but if true, then i think obama should be charged, at a minimum an investigation to determine if the accusation from the iraqi is true.

[Immanuel]

that is how i view it. the two senators made it clear they weren't acting for the US and the executive branch knew of thier activities. somehow i do not believe those facts match obama at all. i highly doubt though it will be looked at all as you can see from that link, virtually no one ever gets truly charged with it and the left would simply call it a witch hunt etc... but if true, then i think obama should be charged, at a minimum an investigation to determine if the accusation from the iraqi is true.

I was thinking the same thing.

I don't think that they will look into because if they did a witch hunt is exactly how it would appear and truthfully, I am certain it would draw sympathy votes to Obama.

Although, it appears to warrant at least an investigation.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

/shrugs....if they made it clear that they were NOT working for the government, then obviously they weren't authorized persons.....if they interfered and weren't authorized, then they violated the act.....

[red states rule]

i could be wrong, but i believe the logan act was passed because a senator went to a foreign country and disrupted negotiations or something that the US was involved with.

much like San Fran Nan did after she became Speaker of the House

[mundame]

Thanks for the info Yurt. So, my understanding is that Senator's Sparkman and McGovern were found not to have been in violation of the act, basically, because they were not negotiating for the U.S. and made it clear that they weren't. However, it does not mean that a Senator could not be charged with violating the act.


If Ramsey Clark, who negotiates with every enemy head of state and testified for Saddam Hussein, was never charged with the Logan Act, no one ever will be.

Note that Nancy Pelosi went to Syria for high-level talks --- wearing one of those hijab things --- and nobody charged her, though that seemed very iffy to me.

The Logan Act is like treason: it's on the books, but no one ever gets charged. I have two words for you:

Jane Fonda.

[Yurt]

much like San Fran Nan did after she became Speaker of the House

i forgot about that, in fact i think we had a thread on here about whether she should be charged. i wonder if mccain is not making a big deal about this because he had similar talks with iraq.

[red states rule]

i forgot about that, in fact i think we had a thread on here about whether she should be charged. i wonder if mccain is not making a big deal about this because he had similar talks with iraq.

http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush67.jpg

The thread ranks #9 for hottest threads

Mccain stinks as a candidate. Remember how he constantly talks about "working" with Dems?

I doubt if Mccain would have tried to delay the troops coming home until after the election as obama did

McCain is a lousy candidate, and still thinks he can run a PC campaign against a Chicago political thug