Sedition:"...directly…commences … correspondence… with any foreign government...

[blm]

"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."


Sedition. It IS what it IS.

Those here pretending that GOP letter is not an issue, at all, are singing lyrics written by GOP media strategists…..and... just plain wrong.

[salin]

1. What the hell did these senators think they were going to accomplish?

Who led them to believe that this was a legitimate action? How could they *not* anticipate the roasting they are taking outside of the teaparty bubble?

Who the hell is advising these clowns? Could no one warn them that there are very serious repercussions of this action?

Yes it is seditious. It is serious. And their "taking responsibility" appears to be: Obama made us!

[HappyMe]

2. It looks like this is sedition to me.

How the hell they thought this was a good idea is beyond me.

Unbelievable.

[hootinholler]

3. The key phrase is "without authority"

I'm sure the Senators will argue they have authority.

[blm]

6. They have deluded themselves into believing they have authority over every aspect

of government.

They don't believe Obama is a legitimate president and they intend to prove that point over and over for their dumbed down voter base.

It started from Day One and showed itself at the first State of the Union. You lie! No…THEY lie in pursuit of their fascist agenda. 24/7.

[former9thward]

4. What was your position on Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria in 2007 to meet with Assad.

Over the protests of the State Department whose policy was to isolate Assad as the leader of a terrorist country.

[blm]

5. Same as it was for GOP congressmen who met with Assad in Syria a week before Pelosi.

Fact-finding missions ahead of a debate are commonplace. Common when GOP congressmen do it, and common when Dem congress do it.

Now - try equating apples with apples instead of pushing the GOP talking point that apples = oranges.

[former9thward]

10. The GOP congressmen were nobodies.

The Speaker is #3 in government and has the power to put forward or stall any legislation they want. Talk about apples and oranges. The official position of the U.S. was to isolate Assad. Pelosi defied that and it was a mistake.

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=1&

She was not "fact finding" she was negotiating by her own words.

[blm]

13. Baloney. Her expressed concerns were NOT different than the WH.

Or are you insisting that WH was not concerned about "Syria's support for Hezbollah and Hamas" and had no intention of "promoting peace between Israel and Syria."

Really? LOLOLOL

She was seeking clarity. That is all. She didn't negotiate or develop a policy agreement that she would push to supersede the policy of the WH. That's horsepoo thinking.

And I suppose you believe no Dem congressperson needed to go on a fact-finding mission to Syria as GOP congressmen did because Bush-Cheney gave no reason to legitimately doubt their veracity on matters of foreign policy.

LOL - You don't even believe what you posted, do you?

[former9thward]

14. Democratic Congressmen were with her.

Ms. Pelosi is traveling with a high-level group of lawmakers, included Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio.

I don't care who went to Syria but I am not a hypocrite who makes excuses when our side does things and screams "treason" when the other side does the exact same thing.

By your defdition it would be ok if the current Speaker goes to Tehran and meets with the Iranian leader "to gather information". Right?

[blm]

16. That's your spin - first, the letter was NOT common practice, at all

while congressional fact-finding missions are quite common.

Second, GOP senators aren't interested in any fact-finding - they are only interested in their way or the highway brand of politics.

Oppose Obama on everything from day one.
You lie!
55 votes to repeal ACA.
Benghazi!
No right to executive orders.
Terrorist sympathizer.

Yeah - name ONE time in the last 6 years that GOP showed their chief, compelling interest was in finding FACTS.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

29. Ridiculous comparison

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. The presidency is NOT the United States. The United States refers to the government

of which elected senators are members.

[blm]

8. US government assigns LONE authority on international negotiations to President.

Cute attempt to side with GOP senators, though.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Yeah. Yeah. We all know you can't hold a real coervsation so you have to go ad hom

What negotiations took place?

[former9thward]

11. Next time read your Constitution.

Especially Art I, Section 8 and Art II, Section 2 which give Congress joint authority over foreign relations.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

30. WE have many on DU Who side with the cons and who are working against a Democratic

president in 2016

Facts are facts

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Perhaps you can answer for the OP.

1. What negotiations took place?

2. How can people elected to government be charged with sedition against the government?

3. Can a president negotiate a legally binding agreement with a foreign without the advise and consent of the Senate?

[blm]

36. cut the crap - You need to pretend that I'm the one taking to the extreme

when I did no such thing. That letter comes close to classic definition of what constitutes sedition - you don't like that someone can view it that way, then craft a thread about it. Have the guts to hector EarlG for his view. You don't like that our views are echoed NJ StarLedger, Baltimre Sun, Bostn Globe, and dozens of other papers, then write to the editor and hector them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6349641

But you won't. Gadfly in an effort to shut up those you targeted is about all you have in you.

NKFU.

[NuclearDem]

37. Let me fix that for you--it's either NKFO or NKFY.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. You're just so cute when you get all huffy-puffy I want to trousle your hair, you little scamp, you.

I don't deny the law exists, I asked how those who are elected members of the government can be accused of acting without government authority.

Perhaps, instead of hiding behind EarlG you could offer an answer.

[Luminous Animal]

12. The Sedition Act (hugely undemocratic, by the way) as been repealed for 95 years.

[NuclearDem]

15. Do you have even the slightest knowledge of how sedition laws have been used in this country?

Do you really want to open up that can of worms again?

[blm]

17. I never said one word about taking them to court. No one gets tried for sedition.

That doesn't mean that what they did doesn't fit the definition of the word.

Do you even have the slightest idea how to read what is actually written without pretending it says something else?

I want them seen as Traitors, Seditionists, and fascists because that is what they closely resemble. I don't suppose you go to GOP sites and condemn them for labeling the left as traitors, Muslims, terrorists, etc….do you?

It is an ISSUE they created. They should be held responsible for the ISSUE. I didn't sign a petition to put them in jail, I posted a definition of the word sedition and you choose to whine about it. I will call them what they are showing themselves to be.

You can whine all you want if it keeps you off the streets.

[NuclearDem]

18. So because the lunatic right does it, we should start doing it too?

No fucking thanks.

[blm]

19. I call them what they resemble - and describe the path they are taking.

Sorry that you don't like that I see their tactics bear a strong resemblance to sedition and fascism. Not really sorry - of course I don't give a sh!t what you think - you get off seeing yourself as a gadfly to to Democrats here at DU.

Your consistent role here has been to try and shut down the opinions of those willing to fight the GOP head on here, on the streets, and in the voting booth. It makes you untrustworthy as a political ally, imo.

[NuclearDem]

21. Oh boy, this is going to be fun.

Your consistent role here has been to try and shut down the opinions of those willing to fight the GOP head on here, on the streets, and in the voting booth. It makes you untrustworthy as a political ally, imo.

Uh huh. Calling out completely ignorant and frankly stupid tactics does not a GOP sympathizer make.

I await your evidence for any of those claims.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "No one gets tried for sedition."

Then why bother? The only thing more impotent than a threat unmade is a threat unkept.

[blm]

23. So be quiet and don't call out GOP even when they pull a BS stunt like that letter.

Got it. Thanks for being concerned.

Whatever would we do here without your earnest guidance? Why, we'd probably sound exactly like the Daily News.

BTW - Have you gone on EarlG's threads and admonished him from calling out the GOP senators over this letter?

Or the many TRAITOR threads? How do you pick and choose which threads you want to target for your hectoring?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Lack of enforcement invites future violations.

Or do you think the GOP actually cares about your upsettedness?

Or the many TRAITOR threads? How do you pick and choose which threads you want to target for your hectoring?

I have a microchip implanted behind my left ear that sends my instructions through a satellite feed. It works OK but sometimes when I pass under a bridge my eyes cross over.

[blm]

25. Nice try - but, I sure don't see you targeting EarlG's threads. Got a reason?

Or is it OK for him to go after the GOP on their 'letter' but, not certain others?

Aren't you concerned that EarlG's focus on the 'letter' the last two days makes him look like a fool?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. As a matter of fact I have answered these silly assertions in a number of threads.

I haven't seen EGs thread; though I've no doubt you'll provide it in the hopes he will rid you of this meddlesome unicorn --

-- because apparently debating facts and things just ain't your forte.

[blm]

27. Not at all - In fact I view you merely as an ornery prig -

someone who just likes to be a gadfly. No earnestness on your part, at all.

If you think the GOP had every right to send that letter and most DUers are wrong then show some real guts and craft a thread saying so. Your focused pinpricks on a thread here and there are laughable. Slightly annoying, but, mostly laughable.

You show no true courage or faith in your position.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Several people have started new threads pointing out the legal and logical fallacies.

You just don't want to be challenged in your thread because you have no legitimate answer to the fact that people in government cannot be charged with sedition because they are the government.

[blm]

35. I am allowed my view of what the GOP looks like to me. You don't respect that.

And many editorial pages are sounding pretty much the same as many of us here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6349641

If you feel so strongly, craft a post about why that letter was perfectly within bounds to you and why you are concerned for those who think otherwise.

Send it to the editors.

Get on EarlG's thread and scold him.

[NuclearDem]

38. Jesus Christ, calm the fuck down.

People can be disgusted at the 47 senators without throwing words like sedition or treason around. I get it you think you're more liberal than the rest of us, but you really have got to calm the fuck down.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

32. I havent been here that long and I already know, by name, people who can be counted

on to ALWAYS attack Obama or Hillary or side with the cons, usually without coming out and saying so specifically, but it is clear who they are, why they are here.

The problem is sometimes 4 of them end up on a jury, and liberals get silenced.

[Octafish]

20. Sedition is what it is.

Those who conduct are criminals.

I call them the BFEE or War Party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x872755

They use office to advance their financial position through war.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

34. Probably sedition, and if not that at a minimum no more classified info for them and ALL

nations we are in negotiation with need to refuse entry by these 47 assholes

[Rex]

28. They had no right to undermine the POTUS while he was negotiating with Iran.

They are usurpers that are accustomed to breaking the law. I don't think the GOP gives two fucks anymore about laws. I know they don't.

Sedition it is. It seems that is causing a meltdown for people that don't really want to defend the GOP you see...just happens that they care SO much about this one issue...

[Telcontar]

40. "without authority if the United States"

Anyone who argues elected Senators do not have the authority of the United States is deluding themselves.

[blm]

41. They are ACTING as the definition describes….

no one is really getting hung up on trying to prosecute for this - why pretend we are?

It's the way we see their actions. So do many editorial pages. Why do you think it's important to comment as if this was a serious attempt to prosecute the Traitor Tots? Did the mere posting of the definition upset you?

[Telcontar]

43. Yes, because it makes the Democratic party look like idiots

Over reaction to the point of silliness means theres no room for actual, effective criticism.

[onenote]

44. Sedition is what it isn't. Among other things.

I don't think you know what sedition is, either under the US Code or the ordinary meaning of the term.

For starters, the language you cite isn't from the statutory provision that deals with seditious conspiracy. That provision (called "Seditious Conspiracy&quot is codified at 18 US Code 2384 and reads as follows:" If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

As reprehensible as the gang of 47's open letter was, it doesn't remotely come close to falling within the statutory scope of the law against Seditious Conspiracy given that it wasn't an attempt to overthrow, destroy, or put down by force the government of the US or oppose the authority of the US by force, to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the US.

Second, it wasn't even sedition under the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term, which is "the incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority". The fact that the party out of power opposes the policies and actions of the party in power doesn't constitute sedition. If it did, then pretty much everyone hear at DU engaged in sedition during the Bush years. Those of us who marched against the war in Vietnam were accused of sedition too -- it was nonsense then and it is nonsense now.

Third, that takes us to the Logan Act -- the provision of the US Code that you actually quoted. It never mentions the word sedition and its language is far different from either the statutory or dictionary definition of sedition. Notably, the Logan Act, codified at 18 USC 953, is formally titled "Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments". (You, like many, leave out that title when discussing the statute). The word "private" is sort of significant, since the public declarations - such as a speech or an "open letter" generally are protected by the First Amendment and, in any event, don't pose the risks that secret, non-public communications pose, which is the risk the Logan Act is directed at.

So, to summarize: Is the letter reprehensible? Yep. Should we all be enjoying the heck out of the slamming that the repubs have been taking in the editorial pages and even from some other repubs? Absolutely. Should we be overreaching by making legally unsustainable arguments that it was "treason" or "sedition" or a violation of the "Logan Act's" prohibition of "private" communications by "unauthorized persons" (when the State Department has taken the position that the Logan Act doesn't apply to members of the legislative branch for forty years?). Nope.