She met with Assad without telling anyone she was even going to Syria. Don't know how common it is to do this. Seems like a rly stupid thing to do. Logan Act:
What would they have to prove? I don't know enough about the Logan Act or know of any examples of it being violated. She just admitted in that interview she talked with him and seeming for the purpose of passing on his messages to the US. What i do know is that a congressman having political meetings with a regime we have broke off communications with is a really stupid, shitty thing to do. I would hope she would at least get fined.
Bravo to her. About time American politicians get their heads out of their asses. Stop arming terrorists. Work with the secular government of Assad and with Russia and crush ISIS. Encouraging to see at least one example of a Democrat that gets it.
I certainly hope for her sake that she had some kind of permission to do what she did that we just don't know about.
if she went on her own, damn she better watch out. that said, there are two solutions in syria. a bad solution, support assad/putin, and a really bad solution, continue to support civil war.
I don't know what the protocol is regarding government officials meeting with foreign leaders but I believe we should restore relations with Syria.
What you're describing here wouldn't really be a violation of the Logan Act based on the text you posted in the OP. But it seems pretty broad in general - seems like virtually everyone in Congress who talked with Netanyahu when he came to the US would be in violation of it, since he was openly trying to push them to reject the Iran deal and such.
Her intentions sound benign. Hard to say without more information. If she just went to observe/discuss the humanitarian toll of the civil war on the Syrian people, I don't really see what "dispute" or "controversy" she is attempting to influence.
What happened when Netanyahu addressed members of Congress at The Speaker Bohners request? Or when republican senators wrote to Iran in hopes of torpedoing the deal Obama among other nations secured?
We have cut off diplomatic relations with that regime. Certainly her meeting with Assad contradicts that.
Good move by Tulsi. It does interfere with the largely bi-partisan interventionist/ pro regime war foreign policy establishment.
That depends on the nature of their conversation. Was it diplomatic? Unless there's clear evidence that she violated this rule, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. If I had the wherewithal to travel to Syria and talk to the people there about their conditions, I feel it should be within my rights to talk to anyone, including their President, so long as I'm not attempting to negotiate on behalf of the US government or torpedo an existing policy of the US government.
I don't think I'd pursue a prosecution given her position in government. But, I do think it's appropriate to have an investigation and for Congress to consider some discipline, perhaps expulsion. And, if its Congressional discipline, the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard doesn't apply. The impunity of the last few Congressional infractions might be making them a little too comfortable dabbling in foreign affairs.
History of the Logan Act is too funny. A successful "negotiation" (not really negotiation) causes resentment from Congress yielding the law. I found it is interesting that since the act became law in 1799, not one person has been prosecuted (one has been indicted). Does anyone actually care about this act, other than to play softball politic with it? Not to said that the OP or any person here is doing that.
I think it is an important and sensible law. In international relations, we are best served speaking with one voice. Which is why I'd be happy to put the screws to Gabbard despite her being a democrat.
