[Nuclear1]

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

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 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."

First the partisanship after strictly saying "no, no", then the Iraq bill, and now violating separation of powers.  What next, Ms. Pelosi?

[vyper]

Hang on, though - isn't she the United States government as much as the executive is?

[Nuclear1]

Hang on, though - isn't she the United States government as much as the executive is?

She isn't the executive branch, though.

Logan Act

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.

The bolded parts are my primary concern.  The Administration, whether Pelosi likes it or not, has cut off relations with Syria because of its sponsoring of international terrorism.  Pelosi went against the wishes of the White House and attempted to open relations with the Syrian government (as well as delivering a BS message that Israel never gave her).

[Turambar]

well, considering who 'chief diplomat' actually is, i'm actually more comfortable with pelosi talking with them.

considering how little faith i have in anyone involved in the system here, that's saying something.

too bad none of them is going to cut off ties with israel

[Janos]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2999062

By LAURIE COPANS

JERUSALEM Apr 1, 2007 (AP)— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that Israel will only engage in peace talks if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.

The message came during Pelosi's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during the Israel part of her Mideast tour.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."

Israel and Syria are sworn enemies, though peace talks came close to success in 2000 before breaking down. Israel charges that Syria-based Palestinian militants are directing violence against it from the West Bank and Gaza.

Washington also considers Syria a sponsor of terror and had asked Pelosi not to visit Damascus.

"I think most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party in the Congress should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Pelosi said Sunday she will raise the issue of two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and a third captured by Palestinian militants last year with Syrian President Bashar Assad when she meets with him. The delegation met with the families of the three soldiers during the visit to Israel.

Pelosi's trip with six other lawmakers also includes stops in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

Three Republican congressmen Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt were in Syria on Sunday, where they met with Assad. They said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

On Sunday night, Pelosi spoke at a dinner in the parliament building, and told Israeli lawmakers that the U.S. remains strongly behind their country.

and it goes on

The bolded parts are my primary concern.  The Administration, whether Pelosi likes it or not, has cut off relations with Syria because of its sponsoring of international terrorism.  Pelosi went against the wishes of the White House and attempted to open relations with the Syrian government (as well as delivering a BS message that Israel never gave her).

Well well well.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/04/did_white_house.php

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White Houe to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

And as for felony charges? Those will be handled as soon as suspicions will become official.

[Nuclear1]

Well, there's your answer right there.

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

What Pelosi did was, as the Logan Act states, "without authority of the United States", hence the big, big difference between the two trips.

It would be awesome if the media would do some reading up on constitutional history before they just slam Republican politicians when they're not deserving of it.  The Republicans visiting Syria were sponsored by the government; Pelosi was not.  Pelosi's message wasn't supported by either Israel or the US, and forced Israel to play along to not look like dumbasses.  As the article says:

Washington also considers Syria a sponsor of terror and had asked Pelosi not to visit Damascus.

On a slightly different topic, I'm thoroughly ashamed and infuriated by Pelosi's donning a head garb while in Syria.

[Janos]

Well, there's your answer right there.

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

Well yeah but I wonder when USA has declared Syria as a hostile country (rhetorics from President do not pass, sorry), seeing how Ex Branch likes to send people there for... interrogation? And that they have an ongoing diplomatic mission there?

What Pelosi did was, as the Logan Act states, "without authority of the United States", hence the big, big difference between the two trips.

The President is not the United states, and neither is the executive branch. Legislative does this kind of work all the time even when exec doesn't want it because executional can not limit legal rights of representatives just because some bigots want so.

Congressional travel is a major means by which U.S. legislators experience the real world of American diplomacy. It affords senators and members of Congress opportunities to exercise oversight and better understand the operations of U.S. missions abroad, while at the same allowing Foreign Service Officers to gain the undivided attention of legislators.

There are four types of Congressional travel:

1. Official delegations. Legislators traveling in this capacity work closely with the State Department and typically carry out diplomatic or quasi diplomatic functions. For example, they might be part of a public-private delegation to a major United Nations conference, or comprise the official U.S. delegation to a foreign leader’s inauguration.
2. Congressional delegations (CODELs). These trips, while often encouraged by the State Department, are typically arranged by the members themselves. The State Department works with U.S. embassies abroad to arrange meetings, hotels and travel within the country visited, and with the Department of Defense on airlift requirements.
3. Congressional staff delegations (STAFFDELs). Very similar to CODELs, though usually involving much less protocol, STAFFDELs also travel abroad to assess U.S. Government operations and gather information to share with their parent Congressional committees or legislative offices.
4. NODELs. This term is used to describe situations where senators or members of Congress travel abroad with the support of unofficial (non governmental) sponsors. A NODEL uses its own budget and may wish to arrange meetings or events independently of the State Department. When called upon, embassies typically offer facilitative assistance to NODELs as a courtesy.

Funds for official travel overseas are administered by the Department of State on behalf of the U.S. Congress. Receipts or written authorizations from Congressional authorities allow obligations and disbursements to be charged against specific Congressional travel accounts held by the U.S. Treasury.

It would be awesome if the media would do some reading up on constitutional history before they just slam Republican politicians when they're not deserving of it.  The Republicans visiting Syria were sponsored by the government; Pelosi was not.  Pelosi's message wasn't supported by either Israel or the US, and forced Israel to play along to not look like dumbasses.  As the article says:

Washington also considers Syria a sponsor of terror and had asked Pelosi not to visit Damascus.

This is a manufactured scandal, because there are apparently both Rep and Dem groups, both completely legitimately, carrying on a similar mission.

And the more **** I dig from the internet the more pearls I find:
http://www.wolf.house.gov/news/2007/01-24IraqStudyGroup.html

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the initiator of the Iraq Study Group, today introduced a resolution in the House urging that the recommendations of the bipartisan panel be the new strategy for dealing with the war in Iraq.

“The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations provide a comprehensive blueprint to move ahead in Iraq,” Wolf said. “It has all the components of a successful plan, from the military perspective to the diplomatic perspective, and is in my opinion, the best way to move forward.”

Wolf said that while the president’s new strategy includes a number of the panel’s recommendations, it is missing an important element: the pursuit of a new diplomatic offensive.

“The Iraq Study Group recognized the tumultuous history of the Middle East in pointing out that Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts,” Wolf said. “We must follow the path of success that led President Reagan to reach out to the Soviets during the Cold War. While President Reagan firmly believed that the U.S. should continue to confront the Soviet Union on all aspects of their unacceptable behavior, he also believed confrontation would not single-handedly force the Soviets to reform.

“Engagement with the Soviets became part of a two-prong approach in which the Reagan Administration alternately pressured and persuaded the Soviets to halt their destructive actions,” Wolf said. “Today the Berlin Wall is down and Ronald Reagan was right.”

Wolf said as the U.S. now works to move forward in Iraq, it must mirror the success of the Reagan Administration with the Soviets and be prepared to pursue a diplomatic offensive which includes talks with Syria.

“We have seen that the current Iraq policy is not working,” Wolf said. “Being willing to talk to Syria is not a sign of weakness, but of self-confidence. In addition to everything else we are doing, using the diplomatic and inspirational power of America is critical.”

Below is text of Wolf’s resolution. 

On a slightly different topic, I'm thoroughly ashamed and infuriated by Pelosi's donning a head garb while in Syria.

I am infuriated that my country's representatives have to speak english when in England. What's the big deal here, trying to not stand out while on a diplomatic mission?
Following the customs of a country? Not trying to offend people? **** DAT

I am happy that you are not a diplomat.

[Nuclear1]

Alright, I think you seem to have legitimate, White House-endorsed diplomatic missions that have government permission as opposed to a Speaker who has let power go to her head and feel that she can conduct the business of the Secretary of State and acting outside the bounds of separation of powers.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution implies that the Executive Branch conducts foreign affairs and creates treaties with the cooperation of the Senate; nowhere in Article I is Congress granted the power to conduct foreign affairs.

The Logan Act allows for those acting with "the authority of the United States" (i.e. given permission by the government) to conduct foreign affairs, which is why the Republican diplomatic missions aren't getting flak.

The President is not the United states, and neither is the executive branch.

No, but it is one of the three branches of government, and there is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers that were clearly violated here.  The President and the Secretary of State conduct foreign policy, while Congress approves treaties, not the other way around. 

Legislative does this kind of work all the time even when exec doesn't want it because executional can not limit legal rights of representatives just because some bigots want so.

*DELEGATION SNIP*

There's a reason they're called delegations.  No legislative delegation has ever gone to a foreign country and proposed a foreign policy different from what the State Department has authorized (except for some delegations during the 1980s that Reagan gave said Congressmen flak for anyway).  "Delegation is the handing of a task over to another person, usually a subordinate. It is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person to carry out specific activities."

What Pelosi did was making her own policy of what the Democrats what for foreign policy, not what the US State Department is saying. 

As for the Wolf article, there's a drastically different application.  What is being stated with Syria is simply talk to them and attempt to get them to help with Iraq.  What Reagan did was open a dialogue with the Soviets to avoid destroying the world while applying pressure through the arms race to drive the Soviet Union into backruptcy.  Diplomatic talks with Syria mean nothing if there's no force to back it up, and any sort of pressure applied on Syria would just be taken as US bullying in the Middle East.

And I'm embarrassed about the head-covering because it's a violation of any sort of women's rights and decency that America's overcome in the past hundred years.  Middle East is a backward little desert ruled by religion-abusing autocratic despots that we've grown past (to some extent); we needn't sink to their level.

[Mefustae]

And I'm embarrassed about the head-covering because it's a violation of any sort of women's rights and decency that America's overcome in the past hundred years.  Middle East is a backward little desert ruled by religion-abusing autocratic despots that we've grown past (to some extent); we needn't sink to their level.

I am happy that you are not a diplomat.

Seconded.

[Nuclear1]

And I'm embarrassed about the head-covering because it's a violation of any sort of women's rights and decency that America's overcome in the past hundred years.  Middle East is a backward little desert ruled by religion-abusing autocratic despots that we've grown past (to some extent); we needn't sink to their level.

I am happy that you are not a diplomat.

Seconded.

Oh, come on, who doesn't think the same way?  Diplomats just have a more... diplomatic way of saying it.  It's exactly what the Middle East is and you all know it.

[Janos]

Alright, I think you seem to have legitimate, White House-endorsed diplomatic missions that have government permission as opposed to a Speaker who has let power go to her head and feel that she can conduct the business of the Secretary of State and acting outside the bounds of separation of powers.

BUt she isn't acting outside those bounds, she is using her legal rights! Durrr! This is exactly the point - you are objectively wrong sine Congress can, will and does arrange it's own diplomatic missions all the time!

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution implies that the Executive Branch conducts foreign affairs and creates treaties with the cooperation of the Senate; nowhere in Article I is Congress granted the power to conduct foreign affairs.

You know who ratifies those treaties?

It is not granted in article I. And this isn't conducting foreign affairs as in signing treaties - this is a diplomatic, legal mission. What do you think about ambassadeurs?

The Logan Act allows for those acting with "the authority of the United States" (i.e. given permission by the government) to conduct foreign affairs, which is why the Republican diplomatic missions aren't getting flak.

Uhm the R and D missions are the same damn mission.

The President is not the United states, and neither is the executive branch.

No, but it is one of the three branches of government, and there is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers that were clearly violated here.  The President and the Secretary of State conduct foreign policy, while Congress approves treaties, not the other way around. 

No there weren't as I have pointed out already.

Legislative does this kind of work all the time even when exec doesn't want it because executional can not limit legal rights of representatives just because some bigots want so.

*DELEGATION SNIP*

There's a reason they're called delegations.  No legislative delegation has ever gone to a foreign country and proposed a foreign policy different from what the State Department has authorized (except for some delegations during the 1980s that Reagan gave said Congressmen flak for anyway).  "Delegation is the handing of a task over to another person, usually a subordinate. It is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person to carry out specific activities."

What Pelosi did was making her own policy of what the Democrats what for foreign policy, not what the US State Department is saying. 

You didn't read that article. This mission - both R and D missions - is a part of bilaterally approved Iraq Study Group's recommendation and roadmap which was passed in Congress at... 2006, I think (I might have the details wrong), and which recommended heavy diplomatic activity towards surrounding countries in order to bring peace to Iraq. House likes it - WH doesn't but lately it has become apparent that WH doesn't know anything but that has nothing to do with this. This is why your criticism is both inaccurate, wrong and heavily partisan.

As for the Wolf article, there's a drastically different application.  What is being stated with Syria is simply talk to them and attempt to get them to help with Iraq.  What Reagan did was open a dialogue with the Soviets to avoid destroying the world while applying pressure through the arms race to drive the Soviet Union into backruptcy.  Diplomatic talks with Syria mean nothing if there's no force to back it up, and any sort of pressure applied on Syria would just be taken as US bullying in the Middle East.

Yadda yadda yadda. Once again, it's the same damn thing.

And I'm embarrassed about the head-covering because it's a violation of any sort of women's rights and decency that America's overcome in the past hundred years.  Middle East is a backward little desert ruled by religion-abusing autocratic despots that we've grown past (to some extent); we needn't sink to their level.

Well, you can throw some more gasoline into the fire if you want to, but you guys are having problems in Iraq and getting uppity for no better reason than #AmericaRahRah#1 and piss off people who actually have a chance of effecting Iraq's situation is propably the worst idea you could do, but hey what do I know since nuclear1 seems to think diplomatic missions are selfimportant shows where the most important thing is to "appear strong and powerful", not actually get things done.

[Nuclear1]

BUt she isn't acting outside those bounds, she is using her legal rights! Durrr! This is exactly the point - you are objectively wrong sine Congress can, will and does arrange it's own diplomatic missions all the time!

Alright, care to cite an example of where a Congressman went to another country and proposed something entirely contrary to what the US policy was at that time and didn't take flak for it, or just throw out a broad generalization?

You know who ratifies those treaties?

It is not granted in article I. And this isn't conducting foreign affairs as in signing treaties - this is a diplomatic, legal mission. What do you think about ambassadeurs?

Yes, the Senate ratifies treaties made by the President.  The Senate does not go out to other countries and establishes treaties without the permission of the State Department.

Ambassadors are delegates.  They're appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate.  Hence, they carry the US message and foreign policy to other nations; they don't make policy.

Uhm the R and D missions are the same damn mission.

No, they weren't.  One was authorized by the White House to carry out the Iraq Study Group's recommendations in the method that the State Department sees fit; the other wasn't.  Pelosi making her own interpretation on how to open negotiations with Syria is not her job.

No there weren't as I have pointed out already.

Yes, there was.  President, State Department, and delegates make foreign policy; freelance Congressional missions don't.

[Janos]

Alright, care to cite an example of where a Congressman went to another country and proposed something entirely contrary to what the US policy was at that time and didn't take flak for it, or just throw out a broad generalization?

Dennis Hastert in Colombia?

Yes, the Senate ratifies treaties made by the President.  The Senate does not go out to other countries and establishes treaties without the permission of the State Department.

A) The delegation does not sign treaties, the contact people and talk.
B) So, what do you think about the whole delegation thing, do you think Congressional travel should be stopped?

Ambassadors are delegates.  They're appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate.  Hence, they carry the US message and foreign policy to other nations; they don't make policy.

Yes.

No, they weren't.  One was authorized by the White House to carry out the Iraq Study Group's recommendations in the method that the State Department sees fit; the other wasn't.  Pelosi making her own interpretation on how to open negotiations with Syria is not her job.

Yes they were, because amongst other things there are Republicans in Pelosi's group, and the entire mess is because ISG recommended it and both parties supported it and none of these delegates have been directly blessed by WH and they don't have to be because they are Congressional delegations and right now you are going to read this thing and then come back.

Congressional travel is a major means by which U.S. legislators experience the real world of American diplomacy. It affords senators and members of Congress opportunities to exercise oversight and better understand the operations of U.S. missions abroad, while at the same allowing Foreign Service Officers to gain the undivided attention of legislators.

There are four types of Congressional travel:

1. Official delegations. Legislators traveling in this capacity work closely with the State Department and typically carry out diplomatic or quasi diplomatic functions. For example, they might be part of a public-private delegation to a major United Nations conference, or comprise the official U.S. delegation to a foreign leader’s inauguration.
2. Congressional delegations (CODELs). These trips, while often encouraged by the State Department, are typically arranged by the members themselves. The State Department works with U.S. embassies abroad to arrange meetings, hotels and travel within the country visited, and with the Department of Defense on airlift requirements.
3. Congressional staff delegations (STAFFDELs). Very similar to CODELs, though usually involving much less protocol, STAFFDELs also travel abroad to assess U.S. Government operations and gather information to share with their parent Congressional committees or legislative offices.
4. NODELs. This term is used to describe situations where senators or members of Congress travel abroad with the support of unofficial (non governmental) sponsors. A NODEL uses its own budget and may wish to arrange meetings or events independently of the State Department. When called upon, embassies typically offer facilitative assistance to NODELs as a courtesy.

Funds for official travel overseas are administered by the Department of State on behalf of the U.S. Congress. Receipts or written authorizations from Congressional authorities allow obligations and disbursements to be charged against specific Congressional travel accounts held by the U.S. Treasury.

You are under impression that diplomacy is the sole right of the executive branch. That is not the case. Executive leads and directs foreign policy, but does not have absolute power over it since hey, legislators travel all the time, now matter if there's R or D before their name.

Yes, there was.  President, State Department, and delegates make foreign policy; freelance Congressional missions don't.

I already posted the link about this. You are also thinking way too simply: politics is a huge mess and PR is important. It's not just ratifying treaties and passing laws, it's also about making friends and keeping your enemies close, to use an old and tired phrase. These delegations work by the recommendations of bipartisan ISG and that is completely normal. However, they cannot really ratify or sign anything without Executive branch, and Executive can always step in.

We can also muddy the waters a little, and say that if the Exec can't and won't try to heal relationships with very important countries, especially in regards to Iraq question, it's not morally wrong for legislative branch to take action and try to prevent trainwrecks. However, as this argument circles around procedures, this point is irrelevant, but I just had to say it.

Hey, hey, now I know: Since you so vehemently oppose Pelosi's (completely legal and normal) trip but do not oppose those Reps who take part on the same mission in the same group, (again completely legally and normally) under the recommendation of ISG, you could maybe point out just what kind of policy Pelosi is now doing?

edit: toning it down and adding some content

[Turambar]

well, not much arguing with that one.