Interesting that congress is interested in the Logan Act

[lostnfound]

http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33265/2006-02-01%2000:00:00

I am wondering whether the interest in the Logan Act stems from a desire by the GOP to squelch such things as Belafonte and others meeting with Chavez, or to stop Democrat congressmen from visiting foreign countries without Bush's approval, etc. Will they end up threatening such people with 3 years in prison? The Logan act has been around for a couple hundred years but basically hasn't been used.

Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act

"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, 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."

[babylonsister]

1. I brought this up earlier from this article:

Public speech now being criminalized

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy /


February 11, 2006
The AIPAC Case: Criminalizing Public Speech

In an unprecedented and previously unimaginable case, two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were accused last year of mishandling classified government information. Now they have asked a federal court to dismiss the charges against them.

The prosecution of the former AIPAC officials, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, represents an extraordinary attempt by the Bush Administration to use the Espionage Act to restrict the activities and even the conversations of members of the public who are not government employees.

“The prosecutors in this case have taken the unprecedented step of criminalizing an alleged leak not just against the government official who was charged with protecting such information, but also members of public policy organization with First Amendment protection who listened to what this government official had to say,” the new defense motion to dismiss states.

“If this indictment is allowed to stand, a statute which in the first instance is intended to address classic spying will not only be applied to erring government officials but now will be applied to private American citizens pursuing first amendment protected activities.”

more...


I was reminded Rosen and Weissman may have been slipping secrets to Israel about Iran.


(Edit to add:
Keith Weissman, an Iranian affairs expert, was fired by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in April 2004 and is awaiting trial in April 2006. <1> (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/21/ex_pentagon_analyst_sentenced_to_12_years/)

On September 1, 2004, the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/national/01inquire.html) that Weissman, along with fellow AIPAC employee Steve Rosen had been questioned regarding their involvement in an espionage case. Larry Franklin, a Middle East analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency was alleged to have passed classified information about Iran to Rosen and Weissman, who in turn are accused of relaying the information to the government of Israel.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Keith_Weissman)

This could explain some of the sudden interest.
:shrug:

[necso]

2. "...directly or indirectly

commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse...", eh, pretty general.

And it brings up some interesting points.

Now, "intercourse" would, of course, involve both (all) parties being actively involved (it's "inter-course" not "intra-course"). And while "correspondence" would normally involve communication in both directions, it also traditionally refers to the specific means of written letters.

Clearly, moreover, to be understood in the modern environment, this law would have to interpreted in light of email, phone calls... and other modern forms of communication.

And what exactly is such (as covered by this law) communication in modern terms anyway... especially when it can be done "indirectly"? And what exactly does it mean to "commence... correspondence or intercourse"?