Will Rice be charged with violating the Logan Act for visiting with a Syrian official?

Question

After all, haven't Bush supporters charged Pelosi with the same crime--even though she's a LEGAL representative of the US government; and has the right to visit whomever she wishes?

Or is there a "double-standard" with the GOP these days?

Pelosi visiting with Syrian government representatives=violation of the Logan Act...

Rice visiting with Syrian government representatives=______?

Patrick: The Logan Act refers to private citizens of the US from engaging in secret communication with a foreign government WITHOUT the authorization of the US government.

Pelosi is a GOVERNMENT official, NOT a private citizen.

So maybe you should put away the video games and clean up your side of the basement...?

Answer 1

I was wondering when someone would ask the question. I saw that twit's comment about the Logan Act. I am so sick of the blasted double standard by this bunch.

He talks as if you missed civics class. It seems he went and fell asleep.
We have SEPARATE BUT EQUAL branches of government. This is why the Congress is able to write and approve legislation and not just allow arbitrary laws to go into effect. This is why we have checks and balances built into the US Constitution, which seem to be back in place after the Republican led Congress abdicated their responsibility to this nation by apathetically sitting by and allowing the power grab the President has done.
Pelosi went to Syria because it was "fact finding" as is part of her JOB, considering it was to confirm what the Iraq Study Group highlighted in their recommendations to the President AND to Congress which the President has chosen to ignore).
So if Pelosi violated the "Logan Act" ( of course he is wrong and he did not bother to read it or maybe he but clearly does not understand it), the following people also did so:
Frank Wolf ( R) Virginia,
Joseph Pitts (R) Pennsylvania and
Robert Aderholt (R) Alabama, who were in Syria 3/31/07-4/1/07
Republican Rep. Hobson (R-OH)
Darrell Issa (R) California who was in Syria 4/7/07

or this just just applies to Democrats? I guess so.

EDIT: Fact finding is not just sponsored by the Executive branch and therefore what is with the double speak?
The White House sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria Wednesday, saying the California Democrat was undercutting efforts to isolate Damascus and send the "wrong message" but any so called " sponsored trips" by the Executive branch does neither undercut efforts to isolate Damascus nor send the wrong message? The White House's own spokesman Alex Conant said 4/2/07, the Bush administration — as a blanket policy — "discourages all of (Congress') visits" to Syria, a country believed by the White House to sponsor terrorism, yet they would go ahead and "facilitate" trips by Republicans?
Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA) said U.S. President George W. Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria.
So was he "sponsored" too? or is he a "traitor" to the cause?

Keep on telling yourself every excuse you can and pontificate to justify the hypocrisy.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt
(1918)

“Patriotism ... for rulers is nothing else than a tool for achieving their power-hungry and money-hungry goals, and for the ruled it means renouncing their human dignity, reason, conscience, and slavish submission to those in power. ... Patriotism is slavery.” —Leo Tolstoy, 1894

"Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A venerable word, when duly practised. But I am sorry to say that of late it has been so much hackneyed about that it is in danger of falling into disgrace. The very idea of true patriotism is lost, and the term has been prostituted to the very worst of purposes." —Robert Walpole 1741

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...

~Theodore Roosevelt

Answer 2

Sigh – again back to civics 101.

Pelosi is guilty of the Logan act because it says “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." She went without the authority of the US because she makes no foreign policy which is vested in the executive branch.

Secretary Rice is the secretary of state and as a result speaks with the authority of the US because she is a member of the executive branch.

You really need to get some real schooling and put away the video games and see your mom about cleaning up your part of the basement so she can finish the laundry.

EDIT: Without the consent of the US Government (Executive branch) - she is a private individual. No more no less -- if she was a public official on that trip she could enter into negotiations, make compacts, and bind the US government to action none of which is in the purview of the legislative branch. Back to civics…..

And for the Queen who appears to be quite good with celebrities, separate but equal does not mean they do each others jobs..... and on to the other people on fact finding trips sponsored by the executive branch (they went with the permission of the executive branch - this charlatan was told not to go). actually to be fair she was probably asked not to go.

EDIT2: I'll give you a star for the question because you at least have some people thinking rather than giving partisan answers....

"In Critical and baffling situations, it is always best to return to first principle and simple action" - Winston S. Churchill

Answer 3

When you say GOP are you saying an elected official is calling for the Logan Act to be charged or a back seat driver on the GOP side.

Pelosi went on her own to gain political points without the care of our national security and to under mind the office of the presidency is that breaking the law i do not know but it sure is an ethical issue.

There should be an inquirery of what was said and was any deals made. The Syrian people sure do seem to like her.... geeee I wonder why????

Answer 4

Sky,
You know that there are NONE of these people that are going to be actually charged with a damned thing !!
They are ABOVE the law !! They make it -- and they dictate it -- and WE follow it to the letter -- or else !! BUT, they, on the other hand -- do any damned thing they want !!
These "posturing" statements-- made by opposition parties-- are simply the "reigns" that are used to manipulate the actions of the opposing party on issues that they are looking for some cooperation on OR some capitulation on in some respects --- nothing more -- and nothing less !!

Answer 5

Patrick E is absolutely correct.