|
By the late 1790's, America was fighting an undeclared "Quasi-War" with France on the high seas. France's Revolutionary government, at war with England, began allowing its navy to seize American ships trading with that country. England began interfering with American ships trading with France. Congress authorised the War Department to build six frigates (primarily intended to fight Barbary pirates, no longer confined to the Mediterranean by Portugal) in 1794, but by 1797 only three had been built. 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, 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.In April 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took it upon herself to visit Syria while that country is involved in disputes with the United States throughout the Middle East -- not the least of which is terrorists using that country as a conduit through which to infiltrate Iraq. The White House specifically asked her not to do so, as it might undermine US policy towards Syria and embolden dictator Bashir Assad. Other politicians have visited Syria, but none have done so with the purpose of opening dialogue with that country against the express foreign policy dictates of the President. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi, said of the trip, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States." However, Lantos' job -- and Pelosi's -- is to create laws. Foreign policy falls under the purview of the Executive branch of government, not the Legislative. Congress has as much power to conduct foreign policy as the President has to write laws -- namely, none at all. Nancy Pelosi's attempt to conduct her own private foreign policy is a clear violation of the Logan Act, for which she should be charged by the Attorney General... if he has time before the Democrats hound him out of office on yet another trumped-up non-scandal, that is. Some have said that Pelosi, being a member of Congress, does indeed have the "authority of the United States" mentioned in the Logan Act, and was representing America on her trip. If that's true, then she did it badly. She appeared as a supplicant to Assad, and walked about wearing a headscarf and black abaya, showing her deference -- and America's, as our representative -- to overblown fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities. Pelosi allowed herself to be photographed smiling and showing friendship to a man who is the subject of a US campaign designed to isolate and embarrass him for the part his government played in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. She badly botched a message from Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert, telling Assad that Israel was prepared to resume peace talks with Syria. Olmert's actual message was that "Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and 'act like a normal country,' and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions." It's hard to imagine how Pelosi's blundering Syrian junket could have been any more of a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Since assuming her position as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has been leading the power-drunk Democrats in an attempt to reduce the Presidency to the purely ceremonial position it often occupies in other nations. True power in those countries usually resides in a prime minister -- a position to be filled here, no doubt, by Madame Pelosi herself. The recent condition-laden military funding bill was a blatant attempt to usurp the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, and now the Democrats are trying to take over as arbiters of US foreign policy... and it remains to be seen whether anyone will do anything to stop them. |
| Jim April 10, 2007 02:37 PM PDT Oh, I'm definitely passing this one on to my Senators and Representatives! People need to do something about this! | ||
| kap April 10, 2007 09:11 PM PDT Pelosi should be recalled and prosecuted. | ||
| Jimbob April 14, 2007 09:07 AM PDT The Logan Act prohibits citizens who do not have the “authority of the United States” from conducting foreign policy. I would have thought that Pelosi has some sort of “authority” or legitimacy at least. After all, isn’t she second in line to the throne? Also, I’m not sure that she did try and “conduct” foreign policy, it looked more like a fact finding mission which I believe Congress is empowered to do. | ||
| JM April 14, 2007 12:13 PM PDT Didn't even bother to read before commenting, did you, Jimbob? All your questions have already been answered. | ||
| Jimbob April 15, 2007 08:41 PM PDT Actually, I did read carefully. I don't agree with you, that's all. I think there is nothing wrong with wearing a headscarf (when in Rome, do as the Romans), and I think that the Speaker shouldn't be a messenger for a foreign country - which it seems that she was expected to do. Also, restoring respect for the United States is a good thing - don't you think? And I don't believe that she actually did any harm - especially because she doesn't have the power to bind the United States by anything she says or does. Also, I don't believe that the conditions in the military funding bill means that the Democrats were usurping the President's powers: if they have the power to declare war surely they have the power to end it... Also, if they don't do it in this way the troops will either stay there forever or run out of supplies. Job's done, Saddam gone, democracy in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. | ||
| JM April 16, 2007 06:55 AM PDT >I think there is nothing wrong with >wearing a headscarf (when in >Rome, do as the Romans), So should she have knelt facing Mecca at the call to prayer and prayed to Allah, too? >and I think that the Speaker >shouldn't be a messenger for a >foreign country - which it seems >that she was expected to do. No, she was expected to stand behind official US foreign policy towards Syria, which she flouted by meeting with Assad. >restoring respect for the United >States is a good thing - don't you >think? How does kissing the ass of a dictator bring us respect? >I don't believe that she actually >did any harm Sure, because no one could possibly think that there's an internal conflict within the US government that has all the hallmarks of a major power struggle. >I don't believe that the conditions >in the military funding bill means >that the Democrats were usurping >the President's powers: if they >have the power to declare war >surely they have the power to end >it... Sure, they can end it by halting the funding. That's their right. Why don't they do that instead of trying to micromanage how troops are deployed? The President is Commander-in-Chief; until they stop the war, he's in charge. >Job's done, Saddam gone, >democracy in Iraq is up to the >Iraqis. I've already answered this elsewhere: the Authorization referenced the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the aim of America's foreign policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Until that democratic government has stabilised -- meaning, among other things, that it can control its borders and police its own cities effectively, and has undergone at least two peaceful transitions of power through free elections -- the job is nowhere near complete. | ||
| Jimbob April 16, 2007 07:42 AM PDT I don't think that she is Muslim - she therefore shouldn't pray to Allah. I don't believe that she cannot visit a country just because Mr. Bush says he doesn't like them. If America were at war with Syria it would be different. Also note Baker-Hamilton report. I don't think she was kissing his ass by visiting Assad. De he kiss hers by receiving her? There is clearly a major conflict going on - yes, but it didn't become worse through the visit. The visit changes nothing: the confict is already there, visible for all to see. Yep, I agree that they should simply halt funding if they want to end the war. But isn't it better to give early warning than to just say "the soldiers have to leave today". They are just trying to do things as openly as possible. It is a pity you do not see that. The job is complete I'm afraid - because the US has outstayed its welcome. There is also very good reason to believe that most of the fighting in Iraq is perpetuated by US presence. Whatever Congress said in 1998, if you want democracy in Iraq you should respect their peoples' opinion. The US is just making the mess worse. | ||
| Jm April 16, 2007 10:31 AM PDT >I don't believe that she cannot >visit a country just because Mr. >Bush says he doesn't like them. Oh, right; that's all it was. Nothing to do with official US foreign policy. Thanks for clearing that up. >Also note Baker-Hamilton report. The one that says we should beg the two countries most responsible for unrest in Iraq to pretend to help us stop the unrest they're causing? Yeah, that report was a real laugh riot. >But isn't it better to give early >warning than to just say "the >soldiers have to leave today". No, it's better not to try and force the US to lose a war for political reasons. >if you want democracy in Iraq you >should respect their peoples' >opinion The problem is that you Liberals only see the terrorists and thugs as "legitimate" Iraqis, ignoring the millions who voted for the government we're trying to help get on its feet. You WANT the US to lose; you WANT the US to look bad. It's sickening. | ||
| homer April 16, 2007 07:21 PM PDT "I don't think that she is Muslim - she therefore shouldn't pray to Allah." Well if she isn't Muslim then why should she wear Muslim female slavery garb? Liberals have such "respect" for oppressors and dictators that it makes me sick. | ||
| Jimbob April 17, 2007 06:49 AM PDT Firstly. It's like taking your hat off in church. You can take your hat off in church and be agnostic or atheist - or not? I really don't see the problem: if you actually have a point then make it, but you shouldn't need to pick up on clothes. Anyway, Condi and Nancy have both worn headscarfs - I've seen the pics. Were they also kissing dictator/oppressor ass? Laughable. Back to the main point: I see a government that is trapped in a Green Zone with no real power, that the US sets benchmarks for: I'm not sure even Bush sees it as legitimate. I was not talking about the "terrorist" desires, but the desires of the people in polls across the country. In fact, I would say that the terrorists do not want the US out at all - the terrorists want to kill Americans, remember? About America looking bad - the longer it stays there the worse it will get. And what it has done of good (removing Saddam) it has already succeeded in doing. The US also planted the seed for democracy, but it cannot do more than that, because it has to be the the Iraqi people, alone, that make democracy grow and become strong. About America losing - America hasn't lost, it won the war. But it shouldn't be trying to do what it has no vocation to do. It's like asking a baseball team to win a basketball game. And you are asking for Americans to be killed for no good reason. That just doesn't make sense. | ||
| JM April 17, 2007 07:10 AM PDT Tell you what -- I'll go along with what actual Syrians have to say about Pelosi wearing a headscarf while walking around the marketplace: "Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women’s freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing." http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66 >I see a government that is >trapped in a Green Zone with no >real power Where do you see that? Not in Iraq. Well, maybe in your fantasy Iraq. In the real world, the Iraqi government has already taken charge of most of the country. A few areas are the focus for terrorists and "insurgents" fueled by outside agencies. >I would say that the terrorists do >not want the US out at all - the >terrorists want to kill Americans, >remember? They want to humble and humiliate Americans, too, and you Liberals want to help them do just that. >About America looking bad - the >longer it stays there the worse it >will get. Only if you and the terrorists win. >The US also planted the seed for >democracy, but it cannot do more >than that, because it has to be the >the Iraqi people, alone, that make >democracy grow and become >strong. Is that why all US troops were pulled out of Japan immediately after WWII? Oh, wait... >And you are asking for Americans >to be killed for no good reason. >That just doesn't make sense. Of course, the only people asking for Americans to be killed are the enemy. I'd much prefer the terrorists and insurgents lay down their arms peacefully. And it's too bad you Lefties can't see the spread of democracy as a good reason to help the Iraqis. Well, so much for the party whose leader once promised that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Screw it! It's too hard! Run away!! | ||
| Jimbob April 20, 2007 08:08 AM PDT I know it's off-topic, but I thought you might find this report interesting. I'd be grateful if you could give me your opinion on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6242891.stm | ||
| JM April 20, 2007 05:04 PM PDT Hard to tell if the article contains any facts; it reads like a standard sympathetic fluff piece from the BBC. Got to love how everyone in Gitmo is really an innocent goat herder or rug merchant who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time -- that always makes me laugh. Reminds me of the line that "there are no guilty men in prison" -- just ask any prisoner what he's in for and he'll tell you he's innocent. Nice to see someone talk about China's horrific human rights abuses for a change, though. | ||
| Leave a Comment: |