The Republicans' letter to Iran

[ZiprHead]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

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

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

I think Nixon negotiating with N. Viet Nam behind Johnson's back and ending up prolonging the war by years is the topper.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remember when McConnell said this was the republican's chance to show they could govern?

Is this letter part of that?

The better question is why the Republican Party runs itself like a soap opera.

 

[Sarpedon]

That's not a difficult question: It doesn't 'run' itself at all, because there is no leadership. People like Boehner and McConnel are placeholders until some faction or other within the party emerges strong enough to replace them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A correction, this is a deal, not a treaty, so Senate oversight isn't as structured. Regardless, the Republican Party seems to think the Executive Branch has no power unless a Republican is in charge.

Is there even a deal yet for the Republicans to disagree with? Or is this a preemptive move, assuming that Obama can't negotiate a reasonable deal because of his blackness?

Yup, it was preemptive. The Republicans again put forth their Wagstaff Doctrine.

Remember when McConnell said this was the republican's chance to show they could govern?

Is this letter part of that?

The better question is why the Republican Party runs itself like a soap opera.

A government that can't govern, can't regulate... something Big Business would be happy with.

 

[maxparrish]

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[1]

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

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

For purposes of discussion you are going to have to use a better example than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory#Senate_investigation

The Village Voice[edit]
Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick's allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke's credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting.[41]

Newsweek[edit]
Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they said that most, if not all, of the charges made were groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for Bill Casey's whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Madrid meeting, saying that he was at a conference in London. But his presence at this meeting was not confirmed[when?] by those in attendance, including historian Robert Dallek. Newsweek never printed a correction.[42] Newsweek also alleged that the story was being heavily pushed within the LaRouche Movement.[43]

The New Republic[edit]
Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found "the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication". They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or was under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick's sources.[44]

Congressional investigation (1992–1993)[edit]
Senate investigation[edit]
The U.S. Senate's 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages."[45]

House of Representatives investigation[edit]
Main article: House October Surprise Task Force
The House of Representatives' 1993 report concluded "there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran." The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[46] who claimed to be a CIA agent.[47]

That dog won't hunt.

 

[ksen]

Teabagger Logic:

Complain about Obama weakening the presidency.
Fires off letter to Iranian officials actually weakening the presidency.

 

[maxparrish]

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

I think Nixon negotiating with N. Viet Nam behind Johnson's back and ending up prolonging the war by years is the topper.

My understanding is that he actually signaled the South Vietnamese government to "hold on" to its reluctance to support LBJ's call for a ceasefire and talks.

Perhaps equally illegal, but of a different nature.

 

[ksen]

Teabagger Logic:

Complain about Obama violating the separation of powers.
Violates the separation of powers by interfering in negotiations with a foreign country.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Nixon negotiating with N. Viet Nam behind Johnson's back and ending up prolonging the war by years is the topper.

My understanding is that he actually signaled the South Vietnamese government to "hold on" to its reluctance to support LBJ's call for a ceasefire and talks.

Perhaps equally illegal, but of a different nature.

That could be right. Been a while since I looked at the situation and my memory may be faulty. Don't get old...

 

[maxparrish]

Actually I imagine the argument would be "sending a letter is not making a treaty".

Sure, sending a letter isn't making a treaty. But sending that letter is an attempt to unmake a treaty before the president is done negotiating. The senate's role is to ratify a treaty the president has negotiated, not to send a letter to our enemy warning them about the president's power to negotiate a deal.

What happened to politics stops at the water's edge?

I'm sorry, all this hyperbolic and delusional outrage by the left not credible. The left's "waters edge" hasn't stopped left wing politics since the start of the Vietnam war, if not long before. And it is not the first time Congress has written to a foreign government, to go-around the President and influence policy. Perhaps some of you have forgotten the "Dear Commandante Letter"?

In 1984 the Senate Majority Leader Jim Wright (D) of Texas and Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and 8 other senior Democrats in the foreign policy field wrote Ortega voicing regret that relations between Nicaragua and Washington so poor.

The writers stressed that they opposed more money for the rebels against the Sandinista Government. "In a veiled reference to the Reagan Administration, the letter says that if the Sandinistas do hold genuine elections, those who are ''supporting violence'' against the Nicaraguan leaders would have ''far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.''"

And they offered to discuss these issues with Ortega and the junta.

Mr. Solarz concedes that the letter to Mr. Ortega took a distinctly sympathetic tone. ... As for the charge that such a letter is unusual and inappropriate, Mr. Solarz said members of Congress write to heads of state all the time, usually to protest human rights violations.

Besides, he added, ''our rights to oppose foreign policy are protected by the Constitution and our responsibility as members of Congress.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html

Or perhaps you have forgotten that in 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in an expression of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to Syria and terrorism. In fact, she sat down with the thug and, understandably, the White House disagreed with her actions. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=94673&d=7&m=4&y=2007

Past the water's edge? More like the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

Historically it doesn't apply to anybody.

Unfortunately for the wise and benevolent left, we just don't have much history of locking up opposition leaders for engaging in speech not sanctioned by the Dear Leader.

Which is interesting, because there is little or no history of a democratic politician or candidate making a deal with a foreign government to further their own domestic political agenda. Reagan AND Nixon were both caught doing this during their presidencies and both pretty much shrugged and said "Eh, who cares?" when called on it.

It seems to me like the Republicans have set bold new precedents in obstructionism and through rampant abuse of the filibuster have actually changed the way the U.S. Senate works (it is now AUTOMATICALLY assumed that you must have 60 votes to pass anything through the Senate, as the Republicans will filibuster any and all bills they don't like). Their obstructionism was just shameful and unhinged in the past, but until now they have never actually broken the law just to spite Obama.

Is it beyond the Republican party to pass information to ISIS in an attempt to make Obama look bad? Would they actually commit treason if they thought it would help them keep Hillary out of office? Because even if they get caught, the Democrats will never EVER call them on it.

 

[ksen]

Sure, sending a letter isn't making a treaty. But sending that letter is an attempt to unmake a treaty before the president is done negotiating. The senate's role is to ratify a treaty the president has negotiated, not to send a letter to our enemy warning them about the president's power to negotiate a deal.

What happened to politics stops at the water's edge?

I'm sorry, all this hyperbolic and delusional outrage by the left not credible. The left's "waters edge" hasn't stopped left wing politics since the start of the Vietnam war, if not long before. And it is not the first time Congress has written to a foreign government, to go-around the President and influence policy. Perhaps some of you have forgotten the "Dear Commandante Letter"?

In 1984 the Senate Majority Leader Jim Wright (D) of Texas and Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and 8 other senior Democrats in the foreign policy field wrote Ortega voicing regret that relations between Nicaragua and Washington so poor.

The writers stressed that they opposed more money for the rebels against the Sandinista Government. "In a veiled reference to the Reagan Administration, the letter says that if the Sandinistas do hold genuine elections, those who are ''supporting violence'' against the Nicaraguan leaders would have ''far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.''"

And they offered to discuss these issues with Ortega and the junta.

Mr. Solarz concedes that the letter to Mr. Ortega took a distinctly sympathetic tone. ... As for the charge that such a letter is unusual and inappropriate, Mr. Solarz said members of Congress write to heads of state all the time, usually to protest human rights violations.

Besides, he added, ''our rights to oppose foreign policy are protected by the Constitution and our responsibility as members of Congress.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html

Or perhaps you have forgotten that in 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to Syria in an expression of dissent against the Bush administration’s approach to Syria and terrorism. In fact, she sat down with the thug and, understandably, the White House disagreed with her actions. “There is nothing funny about the impact her trip to Syria has had,” said then National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “On the contrary, these visits have convinced the Assad regime that its actions in support of terrorists have no consequences.”

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=94673&d=7&m=4&y=2007

Past the water's edge? More like the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean.

Oh, so you're ok with the "Dear Commandante letter" and Pelosi's trip to Syria?

I had forgotten about those until you mentioned them but I remember thinking those things weren't right to do at the time either.

 

[maxparrish]

Historically it doesn't apply to anybody.

Unfortunately for the wise and benevolent left, we just don't have much history of locking up opposition leaders for engaging in speech not sanctioned by the Dear Leader.

Which is interesting, because there is little or no history of a democratic politician or candidate making a deal with a foreign government to further their own domestic political agenda. Reagan AND Nixon were both caught doing this during their presidencies and both pretty much shrugged and said "Eh, who cares?" when called on it.

Except that is not true.

a) In the case of Reagan, it most likely did not happen (see post 25).
b) In the case of Nixon, he did not make a deal with a foreign government (nor negotiate). He signaled them that he agreed with their concerns and encouraged them to hold out.

And finally, as I also noted, in 2007 and 1984 Democrats did substantially the same thing.

 

[ksen]

And finally, as I also noted, in 2007 and 1984 Democrats did substantially the same thing.

I know, I know the rebuttal will be, "But President Obama ignores the Constitution every day!!!1!!"

Let's say that's true . . . so what? Does one branch ignoring the Constitution give the other branches permission to do it too? I guess if the branches were still in elementary school that argument would fly. But among adults it should be treated like the infantile whine it is.

:nada:

 

[arkirk]

Why/How would this be their Waterloo? Their deregulation mania nearly capsized the world economy six years ago. Are they hurting any, from that? Their idol put our superpower economy on debt service back in '81 -- do they accept any blame for the debt? Their last president committed an act of negligence in August of 2001 that forced us into a necessary war -- then he and his VP got us into a second, totally destructive and unnecessary war. (Had these men been Democrats, the Republicans would have impeached them, and Rush Limbaugh would lead every broadcast with a reminder that a U.S. President had ignored a direct warning of a new terrorist plan to attack to us.)
The G.O.P. is a disgraceful, destructive organization with an unbeatable propaganda wing. They've climbed out of the slime before, and they'll do it again. They're rich and powerful. They've destroyed economies and (relatively) peaceful times before, and they'll do it again. They've got mojo.

Before we depart into the land of superlative adjectives regarding the Republican Party. Does anybody stop cheer leading enough to understand that wars kill people...lots of people. This collection of ravenous war mongering bastards deserve a swift kick in the butt...right out of power. We really have no business having people like these anywhere near our government much less speaking for our people. We need to admit the system is broken so bad that things like this letter are the fare of the day. My question is how do we fix it. This Republican letter seems almost unreal...that anybody would interfere with an attempt to make and keep the peace. They have shown their true colors too many times in the past regarding working people, women, black, brown, socialist people, etc. etc. etc. They are the ME GENERATION ON STEROIDS.

Meanwhile, Obama with his drones, his meddling in Venezuela, and his fake Cuba initiative has no moral leg to stand on himself. We have put these people in office...mostly as a matter of our indifference to our own country's politics. The humanists of this world are never going to be in any of these money driven races with enough following to get elected. Before we tell anybody else in the world to clean up their acts we need to do something about our own. Our politics are about as dirty as any on the planet. The problem is that our whole system has drifted into the land of greed and dysfunction and with nothing but contempt for anybody but the ultra rich...and plenty of contempt among members of the elite themselves. This Republican letter is perhaps the most overt expression of the sickness our whole society suffers from. These parties are opposed to each other...so opposed...their actions lack any logic excepting the support of their separate contempt...for each other and the American people.

What would it take for an honest humanist politician to get traction and begin to solve these many problems cut throat politics has stranded us with?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is interesting, because there is little or no history of a democratic politician or candidate making a deal with a foreign government to further their own domestic political agenda. Reagan AND Nixon were both caught doing this during their presidencies and both pretty much shrugged and said "Eh, who cares?" when called on it.

Except that is not true.

a) In the case of Reagan, it most likely did not happen (see post 25).
b) In the case of Nixon, he did not make a deal with a foreign government (nor negotiate). He signaled them that he agreed with their concerns and encouraged them to hold out.

And finally, as I also noted, in 2007 and 1984 Democrats did substantially the same thing.

I'll take Moore-Coulter for $800 Alex.

Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors. She did not contradict the W Administration. Nor did she threaten them saying that the Government changes all the time and they may not continue previous agreements. The Republicans publicly put out a letter for all to see saying the President has no balls and that you can't trust the US Government in general. Only the diplomatically deaf would say these two things are "substantially the same thing."

 

[dismal]

Except that is not true.

a) In the case of Reagan, it most likely did not happen (see post 25).
b) In the case of Nixon, he did not make a deal with a foreign government (nor negotiate). He signaled them that he agreed with their concerns and encouraged them to hold out.

And finally, as I also noted, in 2007 and 1984 Democrats did substantially the same thing.

I'll take Moore-Coulter for $800 Alex.

Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors. She did not contradict the W Administration. Nor did she threaten them saying that the Government changes all the time and they may not continue previous agreements. The Republicans publicly put out a letter for all to see saying the President has no balls and that you can't trust the US Government in general. Only the diplomatically deaf would say these two things are "substantially the same thing."

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

 

[ksen]

I'll take Moore-Coulter for $800 Alex.

Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors. She did not contradict the W Administration. Nor did she threaten them saying that the Government changes all the time and they may not continue previous agreements. The Republicans publicly put out a letter for all to see saying the President has no balls and that you can't trust the US Government in general. Only the diplomatically deaf would say these two things are "substantially the same thing."

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

 

[arkirk]

I'll take Moore-Coulter for $800 Alex.

Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors. She did not contradict the W Administration. Nor did she threaten them saying that the Government changes all the time and they may not continue previous agreements. The Republicans publicly put out a letter for all to see saying the President has no balls and that you can't trust the US Government in general. Only the diplomatically deaf would say these two things are "substantially the same thing."

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

Considering THOSE POLICIES, do you take that to be a good thing? I think our entire political system has a lot of egg on its face and nobody is looking very good.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is interesting, because there is little or no history of a democratic politician or candidate making a deal with a foreign government to further their own domestic political agenda. Reagan AND Nixon were both caught doing this during their presidencies and both pretty much shrugged and said "Eh, who cares?" when called on it.

Except that is not true.

a) In the case of Reagan, it most likely did not happen (see post 25).

I'm pretty sure that Iran-Contra actually happened. I know CONGRESS is convinced that it didn't, but I'm still about 99% sure that Iran-Contra was a real thing that really happened and that several people were actually prosecuted because of it.

I'm also substantially unimpressed with Post #25, especially considering that 1) foreign sources -- Russian and Israeli intelligence, for starters -- both stated that the deal actually DID go down exactly as described and 2) the investigation took place right in the middle of George Bush's reelection campaign at a time when HE HIMSELF stood to be implicated. It's already established that the Bush Administration withheld documents from the investigation -- accidentally or not -- that might have influenced their conclusions.

So at this point it's not so much a "conspiracy theory" so much as a "crime for which no one one was ever prosecuted due to lack of evidence."

b) In the case of Nixon, he did not make a deal with a foreign government (nor negotiate). He signaled them that he agreed with their concerns and encouraged them to hold out.

It appears he did quite a bit more than that, if you believe LBJ. In fact, if Johnson hadn't been so concerned about the impact it would have on America's self-perception, he could have easily had Nixon charged with treason.

And finally, as I also noted, in 2007 and 1984 Democrats did substantially the same thing.

Asking Ortega to hold elections so the U.S. won't have to invade them is NOT, in my opinion, equivalent to asking the North Vietnamese to prolong a war for the purpose of winning an election. I'm merely puzzled about Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria, but then I am equally puzzled about Donald Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam Hussein and John McCain's visits with militant Syrian factions that may or may not have eventually merged with ISIS.