Kerry,Dodd meet Assad Despite Logan Act(AFP)

[White_Male_Canada]

US senators meet Assad despite White House criticism

DAMASCUS (AFP) - Two influential US senators, including former presidential candidate John Kerry, met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad despite criticism in Washington of such missions.

The US embassy said Kerry and Chris Dodd, both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held talks with Assad covering "the full range of topics relating to US- Syria relations and regional issues".

They also met with Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who called for Washington to press for a land-for-peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the state news agency SANA said.

"It is important for the United States to play its role as an honest broker in the peace process, thus contributing to the achievement of security and stability in the region," Muallem was quoted as saying.

Washington, however, has rebuffed an offer of talks Tuesday from Syria's president, sticking to its policy of rejecting dialogue with states it alleges foment unrest in Iraq and across the Middle East.

Assad said during a visit to Moscow that he was "open to dialogue" with Washington about ways to help end spiralling violence in Iraq and wider unrest in the region.

But the United States would "have to differentiate between a dialogue and giving instructions", he stressed.

"They don't need instructions from anybody else. They can start by complying with the requests from their neighbours," came the response from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

US President George W. Bush has been under pressure since the influential Iraq Study Group recommended earlier this month bringing Syria and Iran into talks on Iraq and on Middle East peace efforts.

Last week, the White House sharply criticized another US senator's trip to Syria as "not helpful" and "not appropriate", warning Damascus not to see the visit as an indirect overture from Washington.

Senator Bill Nelson said he had had a "sharp disagreement" with Assad over UN-endorsed plans for an international tribunal into the February 2005 murder of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri for which fingers have pointed at Damascus.

He was the first US lawmaker to visit Damascus since January 2005.

Before his own visit, Dodd said US lawmakers "need to go to hotspots ... I can't think of a more critical player in effecting events in the region for good or for bad than Syria."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061220...s_061220144006

[chefmike]

LMFAAOOOOO!!

The Logan Act?

The Logan Act?

BAHAHAAHAAAA!!


The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States. PresidentRonald Reagan stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

more-

http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act

[White_Male_Canada]

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

Of course. Why pass a law and then ignore it.

The big question always is and always remains,

Why do the `Rats seem to have this peculiar jack-boot fetish.

LMFAAOOOOO!!

The Logan Act?

The Logan Act?

BAHAHAAHAAAA!!


The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States. PresidentRonald Reagan stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

more-

http://www.answers.com/topic/logan-act

If that's the case, why did democrats ammend it in 1994 without making such an "important" change?

It's a sad, partisan day when people like sheepmike allow party-competition, "I'm right, he's wrong!" to so obviously separate them from distinguishing between right and wrong.

This is wrong.

Even by your own party's ammended definition of the act. It's wrong!

Do sheep dream of humans when they're sleeping?