Philosophy Now Forum

.








.................................................






.

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

'nuff said.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
.................................................
.

How can it be treason from without?

henry quirk wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

'nuff said.

Looks like they are bang to rights then, so they appear to have committed a felony but which one? If its treason then I'll ask again, do you really only give a max three years for such an offence?

Arising_uk wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
.................................................
.

How can it be treason from without?

Something lost in translation perhaps??

Arising_uk wrote:

henry quirk wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

'nuff said.

Looks like they are bang to rights then, so they appear to have committed a felony but which one? If its treason then I'll ask again, do you really only give a max three years for such an offence?

"Treason" is two things. 1) A legally defined act of sedition against the crown/sovereign/nation, with a specific punishment. This is often called "High Treason"; 2) a act of betrayal in a more general sense. You can be a traitor to your husband or wife, workplace, school etc.

The felony defined by Logan's law is a treasonable action, but not to the extent that it is covered by the law of treason, (a crime often punishable by death). As such the Senators are effective traitors to their nation and office, and have committed a felony.

Cornell Uni,
States that U.S. Code § 2381 - "Treason", would involve aid to the enemy, but not undermining the President.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

A_uk and Hobbe's,

I interpret the law differently.

Here (from the wiki piece): 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.

Pretty sure if 'the 47' are charged (and, of course, they won't be), each will claim their constitutional powers and duties as congressmen empower them to write such a letter, which -- bottom line -- merely declared that which is public knowledge, that being the President negotiates, Congress ratifies.

Not seein' the felony or treason here.

henry quirk wrote:A_uk and Hobbe's,

I interpret the law differently.

Here (from the wiki piece): 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.

Pretty sure if 'the 47' are charged (and, of course, they won't be), each will claim their constitutional powers and duties as congressmen empower them to write such a letter, which -- bottom line -- merely declared that which is public knowledge, that being the President negotiates, Congress ratifies.

Not seein' the felony or treason here.

Nothing to do with your "interpretation". You area talking shit.
It is not in the remit of a member of congress to engage in activities of foreign policy. Their job is restricted to DOMESTIC affairs.
It is not the duty of these men to countermand directives of the President, and undermine his office by communication with a foreign power.
The Logan act was made to prevent EXACTLY the actions they have taken.
If Obama and the High Court fail to take action against these men, to at least TRY the law in court then the jurisprudence of the nation is called into question. After which any Tom , Dick or Harry will feel able to transgress the laws willy nilly.

Fact is that were the boot on the other foot, and some Democrats had done this under Bush you would be crawling so far up their arse-holes that you would be brushing their teeth.

The law is crystal clear:

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 ...

Foreign Policy is the sole responsibility of the President, as Commander in Chief.

(According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution)

The U. S. State Department disagrees with you, Hobbes.

Perhaps you should (actually) read the wiki article.

henry quirk wrote:The U. S. State Department disagrees with you, Hobbes.

Perhaps you should (actually) read the wiki article.

I did you are still talking shit.





Nothing to do with your "interpretation". You area talking shit.
It is not in the remit of a member of congress to engage in activities of foreign policy. Their job is restricted to DOMESTIC affairs.
It is not the duty of these men to countermand directives of the President, and undermine his office by communication with a foreign power.
The Logan act was made to prevent EXACTLY the actions they have taken.
If Obama and the High Court fail to take action against these men, to at least TRY the law in court then the jurisprudence of the nation is called into question. After which any Tom , Dick or Harry will feel able to transgress the laws willy nilly.

Fact is that were the boot on the other foot, and some Democrats had done this under Bush you would be crawling so far up their arse-holes that you would be brushing their teeth.

The law is crystal clear:

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 ...

Foreign Policy is the sole responsibility of the President, as Commander in Chief.

(According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution)

We'll have to agree to disagree, then (and wait and see what happens, which I'm bettin' will be nuthin').

*shrug*

"Fact is that were the boot on the other foot, and some Democrats had done this under Bush you would be crawling so far up their arse-holes that you would be brushing their teeth."

If you mean to say I'm a republican: you're wrong.

And: I'd be sayin' the exact same thing if it were President Romney and 47 Democratic congress folk.

*shrug*

henry quirk wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree, then (and wait and see what happens, which I'm bettin' will be nuthin').

*shrug*

I already covered that. The outcome does not establish the truth of the matter.

"The outcome does not establish the truth of the matter."

I don't recall sayin' it did.

'nuff said.

henry quirk wrote:"The outcome does not establish the truth of the matter."

I don't recall sayin' it did.

'nuff said.

Except that you are wrong to suggest that a Congress man has legislative duties that extend to matter of foreign policy.

Now 'nuff said.