DescentBB

To Wit:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

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.
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.

So how many here think that the Speaker of the House, one Nancy Pelosi, should be charged under the Logan Act for her un-authorised trip to Syria? Or perhaps do you believe as a member of congress she should be held exempt from the law? Remember she tried passing on a message from Israel to Assad that turned out either to be wrong or perhaps she just muddled it up due to a bad memory.

So did she help her country by her trip to Syria or did she send out a confusing message to leaders of the middle eastern countries. I for one think they saw thru Pelosi's self aggrandising trip and used her for what propaganda they could get. Head scarf anyone?

woodchip wrote:....So did she help her country by her trip to Syria or did she send out a confusing message to leaders of the middle eastern countries?.....

The only question that matters when deciding should she be held responsible for any violation of the law is: Did she help her party?
As long as she helped her party they, and their eager media accomplices, won't allow her to suffer any repercussions.
We the people just don't figure very high on the list when Pols start calculating their actions.
After all, with the current system, divide and conquer by polarization and the electorates selfish nature and short attention span it only takes a few well placed sound bites right before election time to correct a whole term full of treacherous activity.

We all have, exactly, the Speaker of the House we deserve!

I personally think TALKING to people who are pissed at us may do some good instead of IGNORING them while they cause harm to other things.

DIPLOMACY is actually a good thing, despite the thoughts of the Bush Administration.

woodchip wrote:So did she help her country by her trip to Syria or did she send out a confusing message to leaders of the middle eastern countries.

No, she did not help. Syria is a terrorist country and all she did was damage my country by showing the enemy we are not united. The division is going to hurt us and by going there she helps weaken the presidents position. She should be charged.

I don't care for her one bit.

Bettina

EDIT... and Dakatsu..... Diplomacy is not for everyone.

woodchip wrote:without authority of the United States,

I think your answer hinges on this statement. Since the "United States" can't grant authority (it can't sign any documents or pass any laws), it has to be a PERSON or PERSONS who grant that authority. Who are authorized to grant said authority? Is it the President, Congress, or someone else? I have only read the section of the act you have provided so I don't know. Any ideas?

Dakatsu wrote:DIPLOMACY is actually a good thing, despite the thoughts of the Bush Administration.

Diplomacy that is effective is a good thing.

Diplomacy that undermines your country's foreign policy position is only good for the other side and isn't a path to any kind of compromise.

Another example of this kind of party-over-country style diplomacy is the way Clinton let N.Korea laugh all the way to the nuclear weapons bank while Madeline Albright talked and talked the N.Koreans laughed and laughed.

Pelosi isn't representing the U.S. in this debacle, she's representing the democrat parties supposed anti-Bush position.
She's only trying to look like she's going against the presidents policy to placate the idiot constituency. She could, if she really believed the majority of citizens would support her, have stayed right here at home and demanded the congress vote to end the war immediately! She won't call for that though because her party would suffer losses at the ballot box next time as some of the newly elected moderate democrat congressmen have recently warned her. So she's just a poseur trying to fool some of the more rabid anti-war types without risking anything.

Now, is that good diplomacy? Or is it politics as usual?

How about the Republicans who visited Damascus the previous week?

Quit playing political baseball; there's no score to be kept here, and picking one team to root for only harms us all by helping the political strategists.

I personally don't give a rip what Ms Pelosi did. Are you telling me it is an offence in the Land of The Free to contact another government as a private citizen and tell them you think they are right or wrong or offer advice or anything with out Big Brother's approval? Even if you don't claim to be talking for the government of the United States?
OMG what a country! Thankfully I live in a country of Big Government and a Socialist Nanny state.

Ford Prefect wrote:Are you telling me it is an offence in the Land of The Free to contact another government as a private citizen and tell them you think they are right or wrong or offer advice or anything with out Big Brother's approval?

Yes. Meeting with a leader of a known terrorist supporting state is not supporting the U.S. It shows division instead of unity and again.... weakens the president of our country. She had no business to go there and she undermines the credibility of her party.

Now that I see her just trying to grab attention, I'm thinking of voting republican next time..

Bee

Ford Prefect wrote:contact another government as a private citizen and tell them you think they are right or wrong or offer advice ...

... specifically as relating to its diplomatic relations with the United States? Yep, according to the Logan Act (which was passed in January of 1799, at the request of John Adams) it's a crime. It makes sense, too -- it's the right of the government to carry out negotiations.

Whether Pelosi or the peeps in DCrazy's link that I'm too lazy to click were specifically guilty of that, I don't know. I wasn't along on their trips, I don't know what all they said, and I don't care. But I would prefer if our elected officials actually worked together on the diplomatic front, instead of having some say one thing and others say another thing to the same foreign government.

DCrazy wrote:....Quit playing political baseball; there's no score to be kept here, and picking one team to root for only harms us all by helping the political strategists.

I'm not on either side, I'm just shining some light on the so called "diplomacy". What she did wasn't helpful to the citizens...except those that hold the democrat party's power above their own welfare.
Also, there could be a big difference between the two visits. Do the republicans who visited represent an opposition to the official policy? Did they go there and give Assad hope that all he has to do is wait out the Bush administration and then they, a more friendly faction, will be in power? If not then their visit doesn't necessarily interfere does it?

I don't feel like quoting, so this is to reply to specifically Bettina's post, but also woodchip and partially Will Robinson.

I have seen deplomacy used with North Korea, with all the other countries there except Iraq, but I actually haven't seen any work with Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.

Its like being in a marriage, your girlfriend/wife or boyfriend/husband is pissed, you don't know why but they are. You should:
1. Ignore them, works out well for sure.
2. Talk to them, ask them whats wrong.

I am not saying this deplomacy: \"We will give you 50% of your car insurance if you stop the wars.\" I mean more like this kind: \"Listen ★■◆●, I have WMDs and ICBMs all in a bunker in Alaska, all I have to do is arm them and they get shoved up your ass, unless you cooperate!\" kind.

I am not saying it will work, but give it a shot. If we say \"Could you please stop helping terrorists, oh, we have lots of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, nuclear devices, and the GDI Ion Cannon.\" it may get them to at the very least think a little bit more about sending forces over to Iraq.

Mabye we then won't have to send our National GUARD soldiers over to there!

(Its wierd how we are sending our defence forces over to Iraq, when Bush talks about homeland defence.)

I will admit that it should of been more united, instead of just the speaker, send in peeps from both parties to see what they can 'negotiate'.

I have seen deplomacy used with North Korea, with all the other countries there except Iraq, but I actually haven't seen any work with Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.

Are you talking about the Korean War, or the nuke thing? Either way, diplomacy hasn't fixed anything. If we didn't run a police action during the Korean War, and actually cleaned house like we did in WW2, we wouldn't be having problems now.

Its like being in a marriage, your girlfriend/wife or boyfriend/husband is pissed, you don't know why but they are. You should:
1. Ignore them, works out well for sure.
2. Talk to them, ask them whats wrong.

LOL

I am not saying this deplomacy: \"We will give you 50% of your car insurance if you stop the wars.\" I mean more like this kind: \"Listen *****, I have WMDs and ICBMs all in a bunker in Alaska, all I have to do is arm them and they get shoved up your ass, unless you cooperate!\" kind.

God, diplomacy is spelled 'diplomacy' not 'deplomacy'. If you can't even spell the word, should you even be arguing about it? What are you, 12?

I am not saying it will work, but give it a shot. If we say \"Could you please stop helping terrorists, oh, we have lots of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, nuclear devices, and the GDI Ion Cannon.\" it may get them to at the very least think a little bit more about sending forces over to Iraq.

What a grandoise view of the world. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

(Its wierd how we are sending our defence forces over to Iraq, when Bush talks about homeland defence.)

It's weird you can't spell defense nor weird correctly.

I will admit that it should of been more united, instead of just the speaker, send in peeps from both parties to see what they can 'negotiate'.

'Should have', not 'should of'
Haven't you taken an English class at least once in your very short life?

When you can't spell half the words in your post correctly, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Bet51987 wrote:Syria is a terrorist country and all she did was damage my country by showing the enemy we are not united.

Do you honestly believe that Syrian officials don't watch or read about international news? That they have no clue what goes on in the US? Look at any web site or cable news channel and it is quite obvious that there is internal strife. Not everyone gets their news from FOX, you know.

I don't think Pelosi is exposing some enormous, well kept secret here. One would be wise to give the enemy a little more credit.

Do I agree with her visit? That depends. Either way, as a general rule of thumb, I don't believe refusals to talk - and I'm not even suggesting compromise or plan, I just mean talk - are productive. If you think of the "terrorist" countries as a sort of standoff crisis, what's the first thing law enforcement tries to do? Establish communication, of course.

But when we talk to these countries, we need to do it as a collective. I think the relative success of North Korea has certainly underscored the importance of multilateral talks. Syria, much like North Korea, would like nothing more than an "Us versus US" scenario to rally their own base. Such a scenario is far more difficult to achieve when there is strong unity at the other end of the table.

From today's WND...

Syrian reformers say Pelosi visit 'chilling.'
Exile party asserts Dems 'flushing away' efforts to help oppressed in Middle East.

Reform Party of Syria wrote:Five years of investment by the U.S. State Department and the Bush administration in organizations and people who have committed their lives to helping their oppressed countries is being flushed away by the Democrats in Congress who, with the visit of Pelosi to Syria, have shown that they favor the stability of dictatorships to freedom even if they had a direct hand in killing American troops in Iraq.

Complete story here and here.

That pretty much says it all.

World Net Daily? There's not a word to describe the strength with which WND sucks at the Republican party's teat. *That* is a partisan rag.

She had authorization. Its not like the State Department could say no.

all that being said, she is third in line of Presidential Succession.

the real question isn't that she went, its what she said.,

fliptw wrote:...the real question isn't that she went, its what she said.,

True, and for all any of us know she actually did some good. But I seriously doubt it, she is weak on defense from her core, I'm afraid that what she considers compromise most rational people would recognize as capitulation. And I seriously doubt her host was left with the impression that she might be as dangerous to him as Dubyah is and that alone means she will have hurt our chances at causing them to back off the exportation of terrorism/terrorists. Much more likely she gave them the impression that their tactics are working!

fliptw wrote:She had authorization. Its not like the State Department could say no.

all that being said, she is third in line of Presidential Succession.

the real question isn't that she went, its what she said.,

She had no authorisation as President Bush specifically told her not to go, unlike Bill Richardson who was authorised to go to N. Korea.

Dedman wrote:

woodchip wrote:without authority of the United States,

I think your answer hinges on this statement. Since the "United States" can't grant authority (it can't sign any documents or pass any laws), it has to be a PERSON or PERSONS who grant that authority. Who are authorized to grant said authority? Is it the President, Congress, or someone else? I have only read the section of the act you have provided so I don't know. Any ideas?

It is the President and Dept. of State that are empowered to negotiate and establish foreign policy. The House and Senate are to ratify any treaties the President develops. One of the problems we have with North Korea today is Clinton et.al. by-passed the ratification process with his "Agreed Framework" approach to preventing nuclear proliferation. Perhaps Bush should use a similar approach with Iran?

DCrazy wrote:World Net Daily? There's not a word to describe the strength with which WND sucks at the Republican party's teat. *That* is a partisan rag.

*yawn* another lame ad hominem.

You obviously: 1) don't read WND much and 2) are unaware of the direction the Republican Party has taken in recent years. And I suppose the Reform Party of Syria (the second link in my post) "sucks" also, yes?

woodchip wrote:

fliptw wrote:She had authorization. Its not like the State Department could say no.

all that being said, she is third in line of Presidential Succession.

the real question isn't that she went, its what she said.,

She had no authorisation as President Bush specifically told her not to go, unlike Bill Richardson who was authorised to go to N. Korea.

He had the power to invaladate her passport to travel to Syria, thus preventing her from going. Its obvious he didn't.

This has happened before

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953

The real question is if she presented herself as a representative of the United States to the Syrians, not that she could travel to Syria.

So...the next time Bush holds hands with the prince of Saudi Arabia (the world's biggest sponsor of terror)...will you guys say the same thing?

No...because they are our friends right??

Zuruck wrote:So...the next time Bush holds hands with the prince of Saudi Arabia (the world's biggest sponsor of terror)...will you guys say the same thing?

I don't think the Logan Act would apply. The president is authorized by the president to carry out negotiations.

I don't recall having to bomb Libya back to the stone age in order to bring Muammar Gaddafi back into the \"respectable\" side of the international community. Perhaps there is a place for things other than brute force. Of course if such successes don't suit your world view I guess they don't count.
And Bettina the definition of a free society is that dissent is not just tolerated but accepted. If a citizen of your country wishes to express to the government of another country their views why can't they? Barring exposing secret information and all the logical things covered under \"treason\". Does every single citizen of the U.S. have to love every single action and policy of that country? It is not a monolithic world out there nor should it be in your country. Free means you don't have to agree with your government in any way. In England it is common whenever the Queen makes a public appearance for someone to yell something along the lines of \"Pay your taxes you bloody parasite!\" Such people are not arrested and fined or imprisoned for their opinions it is understood that some people don't like the way things are and that is their right.

ccb056 wrote:

I have seen deplomacy used with North Korea, with all the other countries there except Iraq, but I actually haven't seen any work with Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.

Are you talking about the Korean War, or the nuke thing? Either way, diplomacy hasn't fixed anything. If we didn't run a police action during the Korean War, and actually cleaned house like we did in WW2, we wouldn't be having problems now.

Its like being in a marriage, your girlfriend/wife or boyfriend/husband is pissed, you don't know why but they are. You should:
1. Ignore them, works out well for sure.
2. Talk to them, ask them whats wrong.

LOL

I am not saying this deplomacy: "We will give you 50% of your car insurance if you stop the wars." I mean more like this kind: "Listen *****, I have WMDs and ICBMs all in a bunker in Alaska, all I have to do is arm them and they get shoved up your ass, unless you cooperate!" kind.

God, diplomacy is spelled 'diplomacy' not 'deplomacy'. If you can't even spell the word, should you even be arguing about it? What are you, 12?

I am not saying it will work, but give it a shot. If we say "Could you please stop helping terrorists, oh, we have lots of soldiers, tanks, aircraft, nuclear devices, and the GDI Ion Cannon." it may get them to at the very least think a little bit more about sending forces over to Iraq.

What a grandoise view of the world. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

(Its wierd how we are sending our defence forces over to Iraq, when Bush talks about homeland defence.)

It's weird you can't spell defense nor weird correctly.

I will admit that it should of been more united, instead of just the speaker, send in peeps from both parties to see what they can 'negotiate'.

'Should have', not 'should of'
Haven't you taken an English class at least once in your very short life?

When you can't spell half the words in your post correctly, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

The fact that this is a FORUM POST, and not a ESSAY ON THE STATE OF THE WORLD, I don't really care about spelling. The fact I didn't go "U should uf let her go 2 iran 2 help!!!!!!" and actually made paragraphs and stuff on a quick forum post means that I took more time than most people.

Now instead of trying to invalidate the whole argument based on the fact I spelled four words wrong is childish in itself. (Also, I checked, I spelled four words out of 225 wrong, 1.8 percent. Not the 50 you claim...) There is also the fact that even though I am 14 years old, instead of saying the other side sucks ass and saying how cool mine is (Rep: Pussy America haters is what you are Dem: Up yours and your nazi corporate evil), and at the very LEAST trying to back up my opinions on my logic shows that I am at least not completely ignorant, and that I take a little more time than most people my age on discussions like these.


Now back to the argument.

She went over there for diplomatic reasons, and to try to settle the quirks. If it doesn't work, hey, she tried. Should I choke my girlfriend if she got me a bad birthday present, or stab my mother because she served me bad food? No, they tried at least. I still haven't heard the talk, but the fact that you would rather go guns blazing and ignore them, pissing them off even more, suprises me. The fact that she is probaly being wire-tapped would stop her anyways. D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y should at least be tried, but Bush tried to block them from even getting a chance. Diplomacy hasn't worked in some places, but why not at least try and see if we don't have to send over 100,000 soldiers over there and have more Americans and Arabs dead. I am pretty sure this time we are also not going to get support from our 'allies'.

Going to war with every country in the middle east isn't a good strategy either. Once again, we send our D-E-F-E-N-S-E forces over to Iraq, and expect us to be safer from foreign attack. We can't handle another war, at least without bombing it to hell, and killing 25 percent of the civilians in it...

But that is what some of you want, isn't it?

Last remark, you all say that President Bush gave her permission. Explain to me where in the Logan Act it states the President has to give permission. It could of been congress, the Department of Homeland Security, whatever. The fact that one guy objects, to me, isn't a big deal is the majority of the other people agree with it. I swear I thought this was a democracy!

the real question isn't that she went, its what she said.

Definatley agreeable.

DAMN YOU DEBUG!!!

Zuruck wrote:So...the next time Bush holds hands with the prince of Saudi Arabia (the world's biggest sponsor of terror)...will you guys say the same thing?

No...because they are our friends right??

I think getting 100% backing of both the president and the head of government alone is enough authorization.

Ford Prefect wrote:I don't recall having to bomb Libya back to the stone age in order to bring Muammar Gaddafi back into the "respectable" side of the international community.

Reagan bombed Tripoli, tried to hit Khaddafi but killed his daughter instead, I think it was in '86 after Libya was tied to an airliner being blown up over Scotland. How much this pushed him to change his ways is up for debate but he sure seemed to crawl back under a rock from that point on and when Bush came into his region with his War on Terror and said "Jump" he asked Bush "How High?" So I don't think it's fair to say we didn't bomb him or that it didn't have an effect on his decision to go moderate...

Ford Prefect wrote:Such people are not arrested and fined or imprisoned for their opinions it is understood that some people don't like the way things are and that is their right.

And in America they have that same freedom
There is a big difference however, between a citizen offering his own opinion, and a member of the government who isn't authorized to negotiate our foreign policy going to a foriegn government without authorization and speaking for the executive branch who is the only branch with the authority to offer any policy position. Pelosi is free to echo the administration but not to author her own policy.

I don't know if Pelosi undermined the administration but you make it sound like she can go there and legally say anything she damn well pleases and that is clearly not the case, and for good reason!

Will:
There is a noticeable difference between a targeted attack against an individual and carpet bombing the neighbourhoods around power stations and water plants. I am just pointing out that all out war is not always the only answer.
I don't care what Ms. Pelosi said to Assad. I am more concerned about the fact that this Logan act seems to make it a crime for anyone to talk to a foreign government with out being given approval by the people currently in power. I doubt that Ms. Pelosi claimed to be speaking for the government of Mr. Bush but why can't she speak for what she might do if she became president or why couldn't you go there and tell Assad what you might do if you were president? Seems a bit draconian does it not?

Ford, I think the desire was to hit Khaddafi but the city of Tripoli was hit pretty hard but I do understand the difference between all out war and a bombing run whether the bombs hit ten or a thousand it's still a measured response compared to a war.

As to Pelosi going and sharing her viewpoint on foriegn policy...I'm sure you can see how you or I going over there and telling Assad how we think it should be as private citizens wouldn't necessarily cause him to adjust his plans just because he met a couple of people who took a different view compared to the person who is third in line for the presidency, the leader of the democrat party and the speaker of the house of representatives going over there and suggesting a different policy course could be in the works!
It was set up so that only the president could shape foreign policy for a reason and he can't possibly be effective if other members of his team go on their own and tell the foriegn leaders god only knows what!

A fine example is the U.N. Security Council recently passed a number of resolutions that the members all voted for. One of them was that if Saddam didn't give in to the demands then force would be used...but then two of those members went on their own, for self serving reasons, and privately assured Saddam that they wouldn't really go along with the invasion...he gave them oil future contracts and other contracts worth billions....the invasion took place anyway...

Well if the Council had a united front he most likely would have caved in, inspections - real inspections - would have been the big story instead of an invasion and occupation...

So it is important that the team members all know their role and support the team.
What did Pelosi tell Assad? She won't even meet with Bush so he doesn't know!
She wears two hats, one as a democrat party leader and one as a member of the U.S. government.
It serves Pelosi the democrat well if Bush fails in the middle east, and it doesn't seem to interest Pelosi the member of the U.S. government to to work with the president.
She's shown repeatedly that she's more interested in democrat party success than she is in U.S. military success so you tell me, what message do you think she wants Assad to get?
If you were Bush would you feel like she was helping you or hurting you?
I can tell you as a citizen I don't want some pol going off the reservation and making herself the new wildcard in the process, she's not exactly the brightest bulb in congress and her motives are suspect.

Sorry Will I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You are critical of Ms. Pelosi's actions, I am critical of the Logan Act. It just seems like a draconian, oppressive piece of legislation that has no place in a \"free\" society. I recognize that it is old and probably not enforced but I was just expressing my dismay that it is still on the books.

Ford Prefect wrote:Sorry Will I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You are critical of Ms. Pelosi's actions, I am critical of the Logan Act. It just seems like a draconian, oppressive piece of legislation that has no place in a "free" society. I recognize that it is old and probably not enforced but I was just expressing my dismay that it is still on the books.

you are dismayed that a law exists to punish those who mis-represents themselves as agents of the government to foreign powers?

That is not how I read the part posted here. I'll be glad to be educated if I have misunderstood. To me it said you could only talk to a foreign government if you were the government. It didn't say you had to make the claim to represent the U.S. government to be charged just talk without permission.

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.

I believe any citizen should be able to talk to the government of any other country as freely as they speak to any other citizen. Misrepresentation of your position and influence are an fraud in both relationships. And of course you can't give away the launch codes to your arsenal.

Ford, I think the key part is in the motive and intent of someones communication with the foreign government.

The law doesn't say you can't go talk to them it says you can't go talk to them if you are going \"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\".

In other words if you purposely try to interfere with the U.S. governments attempts to conduct foreign policy you have crossed the line.

So if your government tells you to bug out next time they decide to go to war against say Canada, no matter how misguided the reason. You as a citizen of your country cannot go to the Canadian Ambassador and tell him that you are sure that the electorate will vote the rascals out and that Canada should hang tough and wait out the storm.
Hmmm.... I still don't like it.

Ford Prefect wrote:So if your government tells you to bug out next time they decide to go to war against say Canada, no matter how misguided the reason. You as a citizen of your country cannot go to the Canadian Ambassador and tell him that you are sure that the electorate will vote the rascals out and that Canada should hang tough and wait out the storm.
Hmmm.... I still don't like it.

You as a citizen could do that but you as a member of congress, who has a place in the chain of command, a place in the three branches of the government could not., at least not officially. I doubt you would be arrested for telling him off the record that your opinion is that things will change.

However if you, from that inside position, decided to leak strategy that would alter the outcome of the executive branch's efforts then you have meddled in the business of the executive branch who is supposed to be the sole authority on U.S. foreign policy and you should be arrested for breaking the trust and the law...
Likewise if you as just a citizen somehow came into possession of such info and leaked it you would probably be arrested.

Think about all the public dissent we have here, very outspoken people from inside and outside government are always in the news travelling to places spouting off their opinion etc. None of them are ever arrested. I think the need for the law is there and yet your fears have never been realized.

Think about all the public dissent we have here, very outspoken people from inside and outside government are always in the news travelling to places spouting off their opinion etc. None of them are ever arrested.

Very true. Jessie Jackson comes most quickly to mind. I don't however agree that the law is necessary nor is it written in a way that prevents some less liberal minded government from using it to bludgeon dissent. Would not the oath of office of most publicly elected or appointed officials not suffice? I'm not sure it would but at a minimum the exclusion on non members of the government from the act would seem to be a change to make it more palatable in a free nation.

Ford Prefect wrote:Would not the oath of office of most publicly elected or appointed officials not suffice? I'm not sure it would but at a minimum the exclusion on non members of the government from the act would seem to be a change to make it more palatable in a free nation.

What about the civilians that might leak info for personal gain or political/ideological revenge. Say a contractor who knows inside info due to his pending contract to evacuate all embassy personnel from a hostile nation tells his son who is a rabid dog anti-Bushie who then tips the details of the evacuation which causes the hostiles to shut down the airports which causes the U.S. to postpone their plans because they don't want a hostage situation.

Why not have a law that allows you to prosecute them?

I think if we had an administration you approved of you'd see the law as relatively harmless...

Will Robinson wrote: What about the civilians that might leak info for personal gain or political/ideological revenge.

If the contractor isn't an US citizen, then the point is moot, otherwise its treason.

Misrepresenting yourself as a member of the US government is fraud, the Logan act makes it possible to prosecute those that do it abroad.

Its more like Jessie Jackson going to Iran and saying that he can get the US to back off Iran's nuclear program.