WSJ: Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus
- From: mail1606808@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Apr 2007 15:00:23 -0700
The Wall Street Journal
April 6, 2007
COMMENTARY
Illegal Diplomacy
By ROBERT F. TURNER
April 6, 2007; Page A10
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in
traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president,
to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar
Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political
hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special
counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis
Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should
be called back.
The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence
of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the
United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort
to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or
controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute
helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania
pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the
French government that the American people favored peace in the
undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two
countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut
explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress,
"to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive
power of the government. He meant that description of crime which
arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations
of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan.
16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of
the United States have given to the executive department the power to
negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign
relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an
individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any
dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or
any other department of the general government, to do it."
Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive
power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future
Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was
wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a
member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French
Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this
kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as
if we were at war . . . ." Indeed, the offense is greater when the
usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a
member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House
-- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a
usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath
of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation
of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the
president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration
of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the
executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the
landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into
the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress
itself is powerless to invade it."
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on
various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship,
hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."
She is certainly not the first member of Congress -- of either party
-- to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national
leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the
White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to
approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with
representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding
trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or
talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal
negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the
president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to
the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's
trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading
sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been
involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American
military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms.
Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only
shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part
of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to
enforce the law.
Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative
affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing
committee on law and national security.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117582330980561775.html
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ian Leaf: tax fraud sentence reduced to 10 years
- Next by Date: Re: Freed Britons say `confessions' coerced
- Previous by thread: Freed Britons say `confessions' coerced
- Next by thread: For Snyder: Movie 'Convicted' about FRA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
