In 1799, the Logan Act made it a felony for any US citizen to carry out direct correspondence with a foreign government “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.”
Despite never being successfully used, the law is still on the books, and is getting a look in the wake of yesterday’s letter by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR), and signed by 46 other Republican senators addressed to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The letter warns Iran against agreeing to a nuclear deal with the Obama Administration, on the grounds that a future US Congress or US President would dishonor the deal, saying they won’t consider any deal made by the president as a real deal with the United States because they oppose the deal.
The Senate has unsuccessfully been trying to kill the talks for months, either by getting a “veto power” over the terms of any final deal, and failing that to try to impose some sanctions in explicit violation of the interim treaty in hopes of scaring Iran away.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed the comments, saying that international law was very clear about treaties being binding and that Iran is treating the letter as a “propaganda ploy” trying to sabotage diplomacy, which of course is exactly what it is.
It is unprecedented for officials to do something like that, and has fueled talk of violation of the Logan Act, and indeed even treason as an open attempt to circumvent the White House’s ongoing efforts as part of the P5+1 to make a deal.
For legislators, having failed to undermine diplomacy through acts of Congress, warning a diplomatic partner of their intended duplicity is certainly a novel situation, but it is unlikely that any legal censure will result from it.
And whatever else you can say about the Republican senators in this case they’re not lying. They’re definitely not to be trusted in upholding diplomatic deals, and at the behest of the Israeli lobby, sooner or later they’ll probably dishonor any treaty reached with Iran.
It is interesting to note that in the past several decades the only talk of using the Logan Act has always been against people “interfering” by trying to make peace when an administration was trying to make war. In this case, the administration is seeking a peaceful rapprochement, and the “interfering” is trying to undermine that.
Antiwar.com needs to stop participating in this sort of junk. It’s the equivalent of junk science, Fox News and MSNBC combined.
Stop calling people “traitors” and stop insisting “treason” has been committed.
This is what will make me walk away from Antiwar.com.
Screaming “traitor” because you disagree with someone is pretty disgusting.
If this is the best Jason Ditz can write, he needs to go bye-bye. He’s not helping the website, he’s not helping antiwar efforts and he’s not helping the national debate.
[moderator’s note: Didn’t even read the piece before you commented, did you? – TLK]
Jimmy you want war as long as you do not have to fight and a black president "HELL NO"
read it ? no preferred just to storm round the room half cocked.
Impression I've had for a while is that authors here are well aware that there are legal definitions associated with potentially inflammatory words such as 'treason,' and really don't throw them around when those definitions would not apply. I know I've used it when yet-another-story of 'accidentally' aiding an 'enemy' comes up, or when politicians kiss the butt of an enemy that would be declared in short order if not for it's leverage in the states… but that's more hair-trigger than most anything I've seen from staff or contributors.
It'll take a lot more than Jason Ditz's remark that there has been talk of treason for me to agree he should go bye bye, particularly given his persistent hard work over the years. Is there talk or notj? This is what's being reported with maybe we should think a little about what the Repugs are doing at this point. Maybe the principle is when the president is working for peace negotiations, in the interests of the country as a whole not just for his party's politics, undermining that president is not a good idea for a lot of reasons. What reasons? Let's talk about it instead of the usual hot air.
Throw the book at them, not only for such picayune and felonious behavior but for acting as buffoons and putting their own government up for ridicule in international eyes. Which State will trust any treaty now, when they know such people seat in Congress?
If I understand correctly, the deal is being negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran. Although it is the big kahoona in the room, the US is not acting alone. Assuming that a fair deal (in the eyes of all the negotiators) is reached, what harm to our relations with the other members of P5+1 will be achieved by this unusual act of Congress and their future threat? Are we just increasing world perception that we are just the bully in the room?
Empire UAS is pure treason — Pure slavery of we the people
For in 1776 a bunch of slave owning rich nobility got together and without the advise or consent of the people, created a USA government that made slavery legal, denied the lower half of the population the right to vote, gave the rich the power to hoard three-fourths of the land and wealth, gave rights only to those with wealth and slavery to the homeless or others with no wealth.
Empire USA is pure treason — Pure slavery of we the people
For in 1776 a bunch of slave owning rich nobility got together and without the advise or consent of the people, created a USA government that made slavery legal, denied the lower half of the population the right to vote, gave the rich the power to hoard three-fourths of the land and wealth, gave rights only to those with wealth and slavery to the homeless or others with no wealth.
I didn't think the whores and prostitutes in the USG Congress
were smart enough to read a letter, (or) even write one.
AIPAC probably wrote it, gave it to NuttyYahoo, and had him
deliver it to their political hacks and stooges to sign.
This is a good short essay with an excellent point. Why isn't the Logan Act being talked about in the mainstream media? We hear lot's of blather about separate branches of government from conservatives (mostly) but when push comes to shove, they are hypocrites.
Of course we know that the State apprat only punishes the powerless, like Manning and Snowden, and ignores or even lauds the powerful when they flaunt the law and over reach.
Vaguely remember someone writing on the ~hive-mind at FOX in the previous decade…kinda competing with each other to see who could be more brusque & depraved (thought seeing Cavuto going along was a good measure of the intensity of conforming pressures). I've wondered how that was achieved there, though it's probably just more pronounced there than the other outlets.
This congress does seem to resemble that hive more than previous ones… .
The Republican Party has been a party of clear traitors for a few decades now.
Nixon sabotaged LBJ by telling the North Vietnamese to break all peace negotiations until he became president and gave them a sweeter deal.
Reagan sabotaged Carter by telling the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until he became president and would give them a sweeter deal.
The current Republicans are so insane, they have decided to go public with their treason but the basic fact remains: they are in direct communication with a foreign power in order to undermine US policy!
If the US populace cannot face this history of treason, the Republicans are only to happy to keep repeating it!
The actions of The 47 certainly merit the application of the Logan Act, but as the US and Iran are not at war we are not 'enemies' and personal feelings aside their actions do not meet the US government's definition of treason as specified in 18 US Code 2381. As much as I dislike Obama, I hope he at the very least personally censures each and every one of The 47.
In the end, all these boneheads have done is embarrass the US and given their present or future opponents a gift of ammunition to be used against them. I find it rather hilarious that such high-level US officials had to be given a lesson in international law- and US law- by the Iranian Foreign Minister. As noted previously by another poster, they've also provided a very real reason for other governments to be wary of any agreement with the US if the policy is going to be to just ignore it if we decide we don't like it one day.
I wonder if the number 47 was planned or is just coincidence, as I was immediately reminded of the Japanese incident of the 47 Ronin- a group of samurai who in 1703 knowingly committed murder in the pursuit of revenge. All but one of the 47 Ronin were compelled to commit suicide. Not exactly precedent-setting for the modern-day US, but perhaps 'our 47' have committed political suicide by their act of sending The Letter.
These Senators certainly could be investigated under the Logan Act and, if Cotton was acting on behalf of a foreign power, he could be tried for treason. The difficulty is proving that Cotton was acting on behalf of Netanyahoo or Israel since lax campaign funding laws have allowed the legal corruption of politicians. However, there's no doubt that he's a shabbat goy, he received nearly $1 million in advertising support from Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) in the closing days of last November’s campaign.
"if Cotton was acting on behalf of a foreign power, he could be tried for treason"
I guess he could be, in the sense that we could all get together in Uncle Ben's barn and pretend to be a court.
But in the real world, the constitutional and legal definition of treason applies only to wartime acts. And Congress hasn't declared war in more than 70 years.
Not necessarily. 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
"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 ………….."
The "or adheres to their enemies…" can apply without a war, it just needs to define some entity as an enemy. Even a non-state actor can be an "enemy", ISIS for example. It's a stretch at this point to call Israel an enemy but stranger things have happened. Who knows, they might feel confident enough to try and sink another U.S. naval vessel. If we can call Padilla an "enemy combatant" there's hope for people like Cotton.
Padilla wasn't charged with treason. Neither was John Hinckley. Or Jonathan Pollard. Or the Rosenbergs. Or Nidal Hassan.
There have been nine treason prosecutions since World War II. All of them were for actions taken DURING World War II.
If Congress has not declared war, the US is not legally at war. And if the US is not legally at war, there's no such thing, legally speaking, as "enemy."
Just because Pollard, Rosenbergs etc. weren't charged with treason has no bearing on who can be charged, it's irrelevant. Yes, Padilla was't charged with treason but he was charged and held for 3.5 years as an "enemy combant" and during a time in which no formal declaration of war was made by Congress.
Considering the legal contortions that Bush and Obama have committed to assert their powers to invade countries, assasinate U.S. citizens, conduct unlimited spying on Americans, etc., I find it naive to think that they could not justify charging a person for treason without a formal declaration of war. If Obama can charge whistleblowers under the 1917 Espionge Act he can damn well charge people with treason without a formal declaration of war.
You seem to have forgotten that the charge of being an "enemy combatant" against Padilla was dropped.
As was the charge of "aiding the enemy" versus Manning.
And that the initial indictment of the Rosenbergs included treason, but that it too was dropped before trial.
There's a reason for that.
Legally, the 47 idiots who signed that letter did not commit, and could not have committed, "treason." You don't have to like it. It's a fact whether you like it or not.
I'd be happy with Cotton charged with treason as an "enemy combantant" and the charges dropped after he spent 3.5 years in jail.
While I never said that the 47 should be charged with treason since their actions are better suited for the Logan Act, my original comment was on Cotton receiving questionable campaign money and acting as a foreign agent. That's also why I stated that it is unlikely at this time to call Israel an "enemy".
Your main contention is that there can be no charges of treason without a declaration of war by Congress. The law does not require that there be a declared war for someone to be charged with treason only that "giving them (enemies) aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere". I agree that it is unlikely to be used but, again, it is naive to think that NEVER will be used. It was unthinkable just a few years ago that a president could find legal justification to assasinate U.S. citizens without due process of law, something that seems now to be accepted. It merely required redefining the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law to be satisfied by the internal deliberations in the executive branch; find a compliant lawyer like John Yoo and everything is legal. If they can turn the Fifth Amendment on it's head, it naive to think they could not do the same more easily with Treason.
I think their ALL traitors
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-ch…
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/…
Traitors in which context? The three elected branches of government are all almost wholly unified for empire-building!