The Republican congressional contempt for President Obama
has gone beyond the point of insanity to something approaching treason. When 47
U.S. senators signed and sent a letter to "Leaders of the Islamic Republic
of Iran," they may have committed a felony by violating the Logan Act,
which forbids citizens from corresponding with foreign governments with the
intent to influence their actions towards the United States.
The letter, first reported
by Josh Rogin of Bloomberg signed personally by 47 senators, including the
leadership and several potential Presidential candidates, basically urges
Iran's leaders not to do an agreement with President Obama because any deal
they do may not last past his presidency. The entire letter can be seen here.
The only Republican senators who did not sign the letter were Senators Lamar
Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Dan Coats (IN), Jeff Flake
(AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Rob Portman (OH).
This is an unprecedented act of disloyalty to the United
States by members of Congress. They are endangering a delicate negotiation with
Iran that is about to reach its climax. If they are successful in torpedoing
the negotiations, the result may be another major war.
Their actions
clearly violate the express terms of the Logan Act, which was first enacted in
1799, but has been reaffirmed a number of times since then. The Act (1 Stat.
613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004), reads:
"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."
The Logan Act was enacted when John Adams was President
during the time of the "Quasi War" with France, an undeclared
conflict that lasted several years in the 1790s because the United States
stopped repaying its debts to France incurred during the Revolution. The United
States took the position that the debts were owed to the French royal family,
not to the nation in general. The French, who were at war with Great Britain,
were properly outraged by the lack of loyalty of the Americans whose victory
over the British in the Revolution was due in no small measure to French
military and financial support. The French attacked and seized American
merchant vessels. The result was an undeclared war, fought mostly at sea, and
it featured the first combat by the new U.S., Navy's soon to be legendary, USS
Constitution, ("Old Ironsides").
The situation today is remarkably similar to what was going
on at the time the Logan Act was enacted. There is an intense debate going on
today over what American policy should be towards Iran, with powerful
interests, including foreign countries, lobbying intensively inside the U.S. as
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did before Congress last week. At the same
time, diplomats from a group of nations, including the United States, have been
negotiating with Iran in an effort to get them to end their nuclear program. A
deadline for an agreement is coming at the end of this month.
In the 1790s British and French interests were very active
inside the U.S., including involving themselves in American politics and
whipping up crowds of support. A Pennsylvania state legislator went to France
and urged the French to ease up on their aggression towards the U.S. and to
release the many American prisoners they held. The French did both, but the
interference by a private citizen in the country's foreign policy caused this
Act, named after that legislator, to be enacted. It has been the law ever since
that only the President conducts foreign policy.
While questions have been raised whether the Logan Act might
be unconstitutional because of the vagueness of its wording, it never has been
ruled on directly. However, in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, United States v.
Curtiss-Wright Export Corp that involved a different issue, Justice Sutherland
wrote that the "President alone has the power to speak or listen as a
representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of
the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate
cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
As recently as 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct of the United States House of Representatives wrote to members that
while it questioned the Logan Act's constitutionality, the law still was in
force and that it prohibited any citizen from trying to influence foreign
governments in regard to "any disputes or controversies with the
United States, or to defeat the
measures of the United States."
There have been many alleged violations of the Act over the
years, but only one prosecution, and that one in 1803. In recent years,
allegations of violating the Act were made against various prominent
politicians who visited foreign countries and talked with their leaders, from
Senators. George McGovern and John Sparkman to Rep. Nancy Pelosi. The State
Department has taken the position that it is not a violation of the Act for
public officials to have conversations with foreign leaders about issues
relevant to their legislative duties.
Never has there been a clearer violation of the Act than
this letter, which goes way beyond the State Department's limitation of the
Act. However, it is impossible to imagine that the Senators will be prosecuted,
even though they should be. What they have done is close to treason. Never
before has there been an official communication from members of Congress to a
foreign nation involving sensitive diplomatic negotiations being carried on by
the President and the State Department.
But then there has never been a majority party in Congress
as irresponsible and as disloyal to the United States as the current Republican
Party. Their contempt for the President is so enormous that it has blinded them
to the damage they potentially could do by writing this letter.
They well could be responsible for causing a war with Iran
that could have horrible consequences far greater than any recent war. Consider
all that is going on: The ISIS conquest of Syria and Iraq still raging; The
Russian invasion of the Ukraine still underway, and the Europeans beginning to
send in military aid; And the Taliban about to try to re-conquer Afghanistan.
A peaceful settlement with Iran could help bring ends to
these other conflicts. A war with Iran will ignite a conflagration beyond anything
seen since World War II. No rational, or person with the best interests of the
United States at heart would try to disrupt a peaceful settlement with Iran.
But that is exactly what these 47 senators have attempted to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Civil commentary is welcome, including criticism, disagreement, or, hopefully, agreement and support!