Talk:Logan Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Logan Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Another source

FYI check out the Washington Post on the Logan Act.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

The block-paragraph discussing Kevin Kearney's analysis of the Logan Act was written by a student editor of the journal. Unless the citation is otherwise amended to reflect this status, the entire section conveys an unmerited degree of scholarly credibility ordinarily awarded to Law Professors. The original reference may have been appropriate ten years ago when the section was first added, but I'm afraid it's in serious need of attention given the heightened role it plays in understanding the Trump administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantnelson (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely more consistent with the style found in legal scholarship to positively identify student-authored works. I think the way you addressed the block quote is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Kerry's behavior would suggest a violation a whole lot more than Flynn's (they apparently had the transcript on Flynn and knew all along he had not violated it), the article should be rewritten to make it politically neutral. As written, the article suggests a Republican violated it but the Democrat politician has no such implication associated with him. This is typical of the pro-Left bias in Wikipedia, but it is nonetheless wrong if WIkipedia purports to be neutral and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Since an indictment begins a prosecution, it doesn't make sense to say that two people have been indicted but no-one has been prosecuted. If it's supposed to mean no one has been tried, then it needs to say so, but the source cited isn't clear. Richard75 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that an indictment is a finding by a grand jury that there is a cause to make a criminal charge. Prosecution might be said to begin when the charge is made or, possibly, when the trial begins. From what I've been able to find, exactly two persons have been indicted for violating the Logan act, and only one of those two charged. I don't know if that case ever made it to trial. More info in [1], which is cited in the article. that source does say, "Levy’s attempts to scuttle that treaty would lead him to a Washington courtroom to face a charge that he had violated the Logan Act.", but [2], by the same author, says, "[O]nly two prosecutions have ever been attempted under the Logan Act, neither of which ever went to trial." Perhaps the relevant part of the lead section shoulu say that there has not been a successful prosecution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In History Today Duda says that Levy was prosecuted, but US attorney Philip R. Fendall dropped the case. It would, of course, be possible to say that no person has been successfully prosecuted, but I've edited the lead to say that no person has ever been convicted of violating the Act, since the language is consistent with Duda's analysis in The Washington Post.

The old source (Congressional Research Service) cited in the lead only identifies one indictment. There are many news sources that we would normally consider reliable sources, but only identify one indictment. Politrukki (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and such sources should not be cited in support of an assertion that there have been two indictments, as was done in the cite which I removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon

Why isn't Nixon's alleged violation of the Logan Act during the 1968 election mentioned in the article? [3] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The president LBJ knew what he did but did not bring it to the attention of the Justice dept. No charges were ever officially made by anyone. --LBJ also called Nixon a traitor at the time. Obviously LBJ was angry but he was not a lawyer. A Nixon supporter passed along Nixon's opposition to LBJ's plans with North Vietnam to South Vietnam government, but neither she nor Nixon negotiated any diplomatic deals with anyone. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression it was confirmed recently. If this proves true should we add it then? Mini-VanitaS (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Reagan and the Logan Act

I am surprised that Ronald Reagan before he was elected is not seen as having activated the Logan Act when negotiating in the sidelines with Iran for hostage release in conjunction with sabotaging the efforts of the sitting POTUS ( Carter ).

The Iran Contra Affair is follow up fallout.ZwergAlw (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable published secondary sources are essential when we deal with this week's intense political name-calling

Two points: Point 1) suggesting specific living people are engaged in criminal activity is a serious violation of an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:BLP is a Wikipedia governing rule that requires "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Point 2) Poorly sourced material includes heavy reliance on primary sources. Wiki guidelines warn against using primary sources --especially when Wiki editors draw conclusions like this statement (which I just deleted): " Logan Act would have been significantly revamped in the proposed legislation". We need reliable published secondary sources such as law journal articles--not one-sentence excerpts from a verbal interview from a politician. See WP:RSPRIMARY stating: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]