Rockefeller's Faux Paus (Private Briefs to Terrorist States)

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Anyone up for another senate investigation?...this time of a democrat and what he knew and who he told....

Quote:

Rocky IV's Preview
Posted 11/15/2005

Aid And Comfort: The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says he gave advance warning of our plans to invade Iraq to the president of a terrorist state, Syria. A full-scale investigation is warranted.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia has been relentless in seeking information to undercut our mission in Iraq. But he has some of his own explaining to do. In an interview last weekend with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Rockefeller said:

"I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9-11."

What exactly is a U.S. senator with special access to classified information doing providing private briefings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose country has been on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors since that list's inception in 1979?

What's he doing sharing U.S. strategy in waging war on terrorists with the nation that, according to the State Department, gives "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic and organizational aid" to the terrorist group Hezbollah? Hezbollah was responsible for, among other acts of terror, the Beirut truck bombing that killed 241 American servicemen in their barracks in 1983.

Rockefeller's little venture in freelance diplomacy may have violated the Logan Act, which calls for fining or imprisoning any U.S. citizen who deals with a foreign government "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . or to defeat the measures of the United States."

sourceRocky IV's Preview

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,195 • Replies: 25

No top replies

Yep - it should be investigated so that the writer of the original article will be able to understand the differences between the meaning of "it was my view" and phrases and words such as "private briefings", "sharing US strategy",

Another non-story.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Yep - it should be investigated so that the writer of the original article will be able to understand the differences between the meaning of "it was my view" and phrases and words such as "private briefings", "sharing US strategy",

Another non-story.

How is it in the US best interest to undermine developing US foreign policy, especially with foreign states antagonistic to the US? Clearly Rockefeller stepped over the bounds and needs to at least censured...perhaps even stronger legal action should be taken. Do you think these foreign heads of state simply ignored that he was a US Senator, and took his position as that of a private individual? Don't you think they gave his opinion higher value than they would if I had said the same, or higher value than what they read in the US papers? Do you really think his perspective was ignored by the intelligence organizations of those countries and not used as a data point for decisions and preparation they made in anticipation of the war?

0 Replies

I don't think it was big news to any head of state around the world. Bush himself did a speech at the UN that pretty clearly stated we were going to invade. He gave a speech to the nation saying we were going to invade. He gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or we would invade. The fact that we had a coalition of 41 countries before we invaded means it wasn't some big secret.

There is NOTHING in your story to even suggest that he undermined US policy. There is nothing in the run up to the war to even suggest that it undermined US policy.

I doubt that the heads of states ignored the fact that Bush was President of the US when he said in January of 2003.

Quote:

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Telling Syria that we were going to invade isn't news at all. And it in no way undermines the policy that Bush had of telling people that we were going to invade.

0 Replies

Except Rockefeller spoke with Syria a year prior to the date of that quote from Bush. Senator Rockefeller sits on the Senate Intelligence committee and has access to classified information. Syria and Iraq were obviously aware of that.

This absolutely is news, and the investigation should proceed.

0 Replies

The funniest thing about this timeline is that if you charge Rockefeller with giving state secrets that "Bush had already decided to invade" then you have to prove that Bush lied when he told the American people he hadn't made up his mind.

On second thought. Lets do this investigation. I can't wait til you provide the evidence that Bush had already decided on a policy to invade Iraq months before when he told Congress and the people that he hadn't decided. I think we should be able to get enough evidence to convict Rockefeller and impeach Bush for lying to Congress and probably get Bush convicted of war crimes for the invasion planned long before he went to the UN.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The funniest thing about this timeline is that if you charge Rockefeller with giving state secrets that "Bush had already decided to invade" then you have to prove that Bush lied when he told the American people he hadn't made up his mind.

Wrong. It isn't essential that it be proven that what Rockefeller said was accurate. It's more important to know what his intent was when he spoke with Assad.

0 Replies

According to wikipedia, the Logan Act says:

Quote:

"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.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

So 1) Rockefeller is not a private citizen, 2) you'd have to show that he was acting without authority, 3) you'd have to show that he was acting with intent to influence Syria and 4) you'd have to show that the remarks had to do with a conflict or controversy between Syria and the US. This sounds like a pretty high bar.

0 Replies

freeduck wrote:

So 1) Rockefeller is not a private citizen, 2) you'd have to show that he was acting without authority, 3) you'd have to show that he was acting with intent to influence Syria and 4) you'd have to show that the remarks had to do with a conflict or controversy between Syria and the US. This sounds like a pretty high bar.

So 1) you concur that Logan could be applied because Rockefeller is not a private citizen.

2) I should think proving he acted without authority would not be difficult for the Administration.

3) I'll admit the "with intent" is tough to prove, but no more difficult than proving Bush lied which also requires one to prove intent. I don't see a lot of folks currently arguing that proof of such intent obviates the need to investigate Bush.

Finally on point 4) the Act does not require a conflict or controversy. Typical legal ambiguity makes it interpretable in a number of ways, but as I read it, the act states "Any citizen of the United States...who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government....with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government...to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Seems like Rockefellers intent was to drive world Arab leader and possibly world opinion against developing US foreign policy measures.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

According to wikipedia, the Logan Act says:

Quote:
"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.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

So 1) Rockefeller is not a private citizen,

(a) The Logan Act doesn't differentiate between "private" and "non-private" citizens. I believe it applies to all citizens, Rockefeller included, who are acting outside of their authority.
(b) Whether Rockefeller satisfies the definition of "citizen" should be within the scope of the investigation.
(c) Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent, but that didn't stop a grand jury investigation, did it?

Quote:

2) you'd have to show that he was acting without authority,

Whether he was acting with authority would fall within the scope of the investigation. Do you really think the investigation will find some authority granted to him in this regard?

Quote:

3) you'd have to show that he was acting with intent to influence Syria

I agree. As I said, his intent is important, and would be a proper subject of the investigation. What was his intent?

Quote:

and 4) you'd have to show that the remarks had to do with a conflict or controversy between Syria and the US.

Not necessarily. The Act only says "in relation to any dispute or controversies with the United States," and doesn't specifically limit to controversies involving the foreign government consulted with. Let's conduct the investigation and find out.

Quote:

This sounds like a pretty high bar.

High bar? Who knows. Let's start the investigation and find out whether he broke the law.

0 Replies

Well, it appears (based on commentary and not the act itself) that the act only applies to private citizens which would exclude Rockefeller, who is not a private citizen. If I'm wrong then we can skip number 1.

On point 2, the act says "authority of United States" not authority of the president. So you'd have to show that he does not have the authority to meet with the Syrian president, which might be tough to do if you think about all of the times that senators have visited with foreign leaders.

As to your reading of 4, it's true that if you omit the words " in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States" from the act then it's pretty easy to interpret it the way you have.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Well, it appears (based on commentary and not the act itself) that the act only applies to private citizens which would exclude Rockefeller, who is not a private citizen. If I'm wrong then we can skip number 1.

I see nothing in the law itself that would limit it to "private" citizens.

Quote:

On point 2, the act says "authority of United States" not authority of the president. So you'd have to show that he does not have the authority to meet with the Syrian president, which might be tough to do if you think about all of the times that senators have visited with foreign leaders.

I'm not suggesting he didn't have the authority to meet with Assad, but perhaps he didn't have the authority to meet with the intent to influence Syria's conduct in relation to the US's controversy with Syria.

Quote:

As to your reading of 4, it's true that if you omit the words " in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States" from the act then it's pretty easy to interpret it the way you have.

You don't have to delete those words to interpret the way I have. It seem unambiguous to me. If Congress had intended to limit it to only disputes or controversies between the US and the foreign government consulted, it would have been easy for it to have written the law that way.

0 Replies

Ok. Lets start from the beginning Tico. What evidence is there even of a crime?

It certainly is not illegal for Senators to meet with leaders of foreign countries. They do it all the time. State the basis for why an investigation should even be called for.

The Logan act reads

Quote:

953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Release date: 2005-08-03

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Read the ENTIRE act Tico, not just the selective editing done by the RW pundits.

It requires that there be a dispute or controversy or that it is an attempt to defeat the measure of the US.

If there was no intent to invade on the part of the US govt then there could be no attempt to defeat the US measures so it couldn't rise to a crime in any way shape or form based on an attempt to defeat US measures.

The first part requires to show a controversy or a dispute that Rockefeller would have attempted to influence. Again, there doesn't seem to be much of a dispute there at the time. Syria was cooperating in the war on terror.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You don't have to delete those words to interpret the way I have. It seem unambiguous to me. If Congress had intended to limit it to only disputes or controversies between the US and the foreign government consulted, it would have been easy for it to have written the law that way.

The law DOES include the words that restrict it to disputes or controversies.
The entire phrase reads thus
...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 ...

It requires that it be in relation to a dispute or controversy.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If there was no intent to invade on the part of the US govt then there could be no attempt to defeat the US measures so it couldn't rise to a crime in any way shape or form based on an attempt to defeat US measures.

Clearly Rockefeller believed he knew Bush's plans (accurately or not) and actively worked to expose and defeat with a foreign country what he believed to be true. As Tico has already stated, it is Rockefellers intent that should be investigated. Bush's intent to invade or not in Jan 2002 is irrelevant in this context.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

You don't have to delete those words to interpret the way I have. It seem unambiguous to me. If Congress had intended to limit it to only disputes or controversies between the US and the foreign government consulted, it would have been easy for it to have written the law that way.

The law DOES include the words that restrict it to disputes or controversies.
The entire phrase reads thus
...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 ...

It requires that it be in relation to a dispute or controversy.

Did you see that little word "or" ending your quote of the law? To me that means "in relation to any disputes or controversies" or "or to defeat the measures of the United States". Either condition is grounds for legal action.

0 Replies

How does telling Syria that Bush intends to invade Iraq defeat the US? As I pointed out Bush told everyone that later. And it didn't prevent the US from invading.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I see nothing in the law itself that would limit it to "private" citizens.

Nor do I, which is why I included that little bit in the elipses (by commentary only). But it was implied in both the first post of this thread and in the wikipedia link, which is why I addressed it.

Quote:

I'm not suggesting he didn't have the authority to meet with Assad, but perhaps he didn't have the authority to meet with the intent to influence Syria's conduct in relation to the US's controversy with Syria.

And there's where you have to show that his intent was to influence Syria's conduct in relation to a controversy with Syria, which controversy would also need to be defined.

Quote:

You don't have to delete those words to interpret the way I have. It seem unambiguous to me. If Congress had intended to limit it to only disputes or controversies between the US and the foreign government consulted, it would have been easy for it to have written the law that way.

Well, those words are there for a reason. It's possible that it was intended that any of those three intentions should be sufficient, I don't know. But even then, it's quite a high bar to show that any of the three apply. You'd have the most luck with the first, I think, but still very difficult.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ok. Lets start from the beginning Tico. What evidence is there even of a crime?

It certainly is not illegal for Senators to meet with leaders of foreign countries. They do it all the time. State the basis for why an investigation should even be called for.

The Logan act reads

Quote:
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Release date: 2005-08-03

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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Read the ENTIRE act Tico, not just the selective editing done by the RW pundits.

It requires that there be a dispute or controversy or that it is an attempt to defeat the measure of the US.

If there was no intent to invade on the part of the US govt then there could be no attempt to defeat the US measures so it couldn't rise to a crime in any way shape or form based on an attempt to defeat US measures.

The first part requires to show a controversy or a dispute that Rockefeller would have attempted to influence. Again, there doesn't seem to be much of a dispute there at the time. Syria was cooperating in the war on terror.

I already went through this point by point with FD.

Unless Valerie Plame was a "covert agent" nobody can be convicted of disclosing her identity, but your lack of knowledge about whether she was or wasn't didn't stop you from thinking an investigation into the incident was warranted. Why is this any different? Investigations are only appropriate if they are of the Bush Administration?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

You don't have to delete those words to interpret the way I have. It seem unambiguous to me. If Congress had intended to limit it to only disputes or controversies between the US and the foreign government consulted, it would have been easy for it to have written the law that way.

The law DOES include the words that restrict it to disputes or controversies.
The entire phrase reads thus
...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 ...

It requires that it be in relation to a dispute or controversy.

<sigh> Try reading my post again, particularly the part where I typed "... and the foreign goverment consulted, ..." There was a controversy between the US & Iraq; why are you reading into the law that the controversy must be between the US and Syria?

0 Replies

Rockefeller's Faux Paus (Private Briefs to Terrorist States)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know