In 1985, then-freshman Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua to mee with the Sandinista president, Daniel Ortega, who at the time was considered by the Reagan adminstration as an enemy of the state.
Jan 19, 2017
Thirty-five Democrats in the House have sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging her to appoint an independent Special Counsel because Donald Trump "has repeatedly engaged in actions constituting unauthorized foreign policy in violation of the Logan Act."
Dating back to 1799, the law has resulted in a grand total of one indictment (during Thomas Jefferson's presidency) and no conviction. But the Logan Act remains a convenient statute to brandish against disruptors of foreign-policy orthodoxies.
The Jan. 12 letter -- relying on an arcane and wobbly relic of a law -- is an example of opportunism that isn't even opportune. Worse, it's an effort to spur Justice Department action that would establish a dangerous precedent.
When the letter charges that "in several cases Mr. Trump's actions directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the complaint rings hollow. In our lifetimes, countless private citizens -- and quite a few members of Congress -- have sought to contravene and undermine official U.S. positions. Often that has been for the better.
The members of Congress who signed the letter should know that. Many are ostensibly aligned with the kind of dissent that has been -- and will be -- essential to pull this country away from disastrous wars overseas. More than half of the letter's signers -- 19 of the 35 -- are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
It should be obvious that the Logan Act is antithetical to free speech and other vital liberties. The law provides for up to three years in prison for "any citizen of the United States" who -- without authorization from the U.S. government -- "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government," with intent to influence that government "in relation to disputes or controversies with the United States."
Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas, points out that the First and Fifth Amendments "do not look too kindly on either content-based restrictions on speech (which the Logan Act clearly is), or criminal laws that do not clearly articulate the line between lawful and unlawful conduct (which the Logan Act may well not do)."
In recent decades, the specter of the Logan Act has been used to threaten legislators who went outside an administration's policy boundaries. In 1975, Sens. George McGovern and John Sparkman faced accusations that they'd violated the Act by going to Havana and talking with Cuban officials. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan said that Jesse Jackson's efforts in Cuba and Nicaragua may have violated the Logan Act.
Later in the 1980s, Reagan's National Security Council considered invoking the Logan Act to stop House Speaker Jim Wright's involvement in negotiations between the Sandinista government and the Contra forces that the CIA made possible in Nicaragua. Twenty years later, in 2007, another House speaker -- Nancy Pelosi -- faced accusations that she'd run afoul of the Logan Act by going to Damascus and negotiating with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
Now, it's sad to see dozens of Democrats trying to throw the Logan Act at Trump when there are so many crucial matters to address -- healthcare, civil rights, environmental protection, social programs and much more. While a multitude of legitimate and profound issues are at hand -- with an urgent need to concentrate on blocking the GOP's legislative agenda -- the letter clamoring for a Logan Act investigation of Trump is an instance of counterproductive partisan zeal run amuck.
The idea that a U.S. citizen -- whether Donald Trump, Jesse Jackson or anyone else -- does not have a right to dialogue with officials of foreign governments is pernicious and undemocratic. We should assert that right, no matter who is in the Oval Office.
While some members of Congress are indignant that Trump's actions "directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the history of U.S. foreign policy warns against automatic deference to official U.S. positions. Citizens have often been wise when they sought to contravene and undermine the U.S. government's positions.
Today, entrenched forces in Washington remain committed to foreign policies more in line with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism" than the statecraft of real diplomacy. Citizens should push back against officials at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who cite the Logan Act as an argument for conformity or use it as a tool for intimidation.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 The Hill
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback with a new afterword about the Gaza war in autumn 2024.
Thirty-five Democrats in the House have sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging her to appoint an independent Special Counsel because Donald Trump "has repeatedly engaged in actions constituting unauthorized foreign policy in violation of the Logan Act."
Dating back to 1799, the law has resulted in a grand total of one indictment (during Thomas Jefferson's presidency) and no conviction. But the Logan Act remains a convenient statute to brandish against disruptors of foreign-policy orthodoxies.
The Jan. 12 letter -- relying on an arcane and wobbly relic of a law -- is an example of opportunism that isn't even opportune. Worse, it's an effort to spur Justice Department action that would establish a dangerous precedent.
When the letter charges that "in several cases Mr. Trump's actions directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the complaint rings hollow. In our lifetimes, countless private citizens -- and quite a few members of Congress -- have sought to contravene and undermine official U.S. positions. Often that has been for the better.
The members of Congress who signed the letter should know that. Many are ostensibly aligned with the kind of dissent that has been -- and will be -- essential to pull this country away from disastrous wars overseas. More than half of the letter's signers -- 19 of the 35 -- are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
It should be obvious that the Logan Act is antithetical to free speech and other vital liberties. The law provides for up to three years in prison for "any citizen of the United States" who -- without authorization from the U.S. government -- "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government," with intent to influence that government "in relation to disputes or controversies with the United States."
Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas, points out that the First and Fifth Amendments "do not look too kindly on either content-based restrictions on speech (which the Logan Act clearly is), or criminal laws that do not clearly articulate the line between lawful and unlawful conduct (which the Logan Act may well not do)."
In recent decades, the specter of the Logan Act has been used to threaten legislators who went outside an administration's policy boundaries. In 1975, Sens. George McGovern and John Sparkman faced accusations that they'd violated the Act by going to Havana and talking with Cuban officials. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan said that Jesse Jackson's efforts in Cuba and Nicaragua may have violated the Logan Act.
Later in the 1980s, Reagan's National Security Council considered invoking the Logan Act to stop House Speaker Jim Wright's involvement in negotiations between the Sandinista government and the Contra forces that the CIA made possible in Nicaragua. Twenty years later, in 2007, another House speaker -- Nancy Pelosi -- faced accusations that she'd run afoul of the Logan Act by going to Damascus and negotiating with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
Now, it's sad to see dozens of Democrats trying to throw the Logan Act at Trump when there are so many crucial matters to address -- healthcare, civil rights, environmental protection, social programs and much more. While a multitude of legitimate and profound issues are at hand -- with an urgent need to concentrate on blocking the GOP's legislative agenda -- the letter clamoring for a Logan Act investigation of Trump is an instance of counterproductive partisan zeal run amuck.
The idea that a U.S. citizen -- whether Donald Trump, Jesse Jackson or anyone else -- does not have a right to dialogue with officials of foreign governments is pernicious and undemocratic. We should assert that right, no matter who is in the Oval Office.
While some members of Congress are indignant that Trump's actions "directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the history of U.S. foreign policy warns against automatic deference to official U.S. positions. Citizens have often been wise when they sought to contravene and undermine the U.S. government's positions.
Today, entrenched forces in Washington remain committed to foreign policies more in line with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism" than the statecraft of real diplomacy. Citizens should push back against officials at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who cite the Logan Act as an argument for conformity or use it as a tool for intimidation.
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback with a new afterword about the Gaza war in autumn 2024.
Thirty-five Democrats in the House have sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging her to appoint an independent Special Counsel because Donald Trump "has repeatedly engaged in actions constituting unauthorized foreign policy in violation of the Logan Act."
Dating back to 1799, the law has resulted in a grand total of one indictment (during Thomas Jefferson's presidency) and no conviction. But the Logan Act remains a convenient statute to brandish against disruptors of foreign-policy orthodoxies.
The Jan. 12 letter -- relying on an arcane and wobbly relic of a law -- is an example of opportunism that isn't even opportune. Worse, it's an effort to spur Justice Department action that would establish a dangerous precedent.
When the letter charges that "in several cases Mr. Trump's actions directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the complaint rings hollow. In our lifetimes, countless private citizens -- and quite a few members of Congress -- have sought to contravene and undermine official U.S. positions. Often that has been for the better.
The members of Congress who signed the letter should know that. Many are ostensibly aligned with the kind of dissent that has been -- and will be -- essential to pull this country away from disastrous wars overseas. More than half of the letter's signers -- 19 of the 35 -- are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
It should be obvious that the Logan Act is antithetical to free speech and other vital liberties. The law provides for up to three years in prison for "any citizen of the United States" who -- without authorization from the U.S. government -- "directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government," with intent to influence that government "in relation to disputes or controversies with the United States."
Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas, points out that the First and Fifth Amendments "do not look too kindly on either content-based restrictions on speech (which the Logan Act clearly is), or criminal laws that do not clearly articulate the line between lawful and unlawful conduct (which the Logan Act may well not do)."
In recent decades, the specter of the Logan Act has been used to threaten legislators who went outside an administration's policy boundaries. In 1975, Sens. George McGovern and John Sparkman faced accusations that they'd violated the Act by going to Havana and talking with Cuban officials. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan said that Jesse Jackson's efforts in Cuba and Nicaragua may have violated the Logan Act.
Later in the 1980s, Reagan's National Security Council considered invoking the Logan Act to stop House Speaker Jim Wright's involvement in negotiations between the Sandinista government and the Contra forces that the CIA made possible in Nicaragua. Twenty years later, in 2007, another House speaker -- Nancy Pelosi -- faced accusations that she'd run afoul of the Logan Act by going to Damascus and negotiating with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
Now, it's sad to see dozens of Democrats trying to throw the Logan Act at Trump when there are so many crucial matters to address -- healthcare, civil rights, environmental protection, social programs and much more. While a multitude of legitimate and profound issues are at hand -- with an urgent need to concentrate on blocking the GOP's legislative agenda -- the letter clamoring for a Logan Act investigation of Trump is an instance of counterproductive partisan zeal run amuck.
The idea that a U.S. citizen -- whether Donald Trump, Jesse Jackson or anyone else -- does not have a right to dialogue with officials of foreign governments is pernicious and undemocratic. We should assert that right, no matter who is in the Oval Office.
While some members of Congress are indignant that Trump's actions "directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government," the history of U.S. foreign policy warns against automatic deference to official U.S. positions. Citizens have often been wise when they sought to contravene and undermine the U.S. government's positions.
Today, entrenched forces in Washington remain committed to foreign policies more in line with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism" than the statecraft of real diplomacy. Citizens should push back against officials at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who cite the Logan Act as an argument for conformity or use it as a tool for intimidation.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.