Posted on 04/09/2007 7:13:57 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, we learned from our mistakes?
The beleaguered Bush administration has had a dreadful couple of years. Now, for the first time in recent memory, a silk purse has fallen into the president’s lap in the form of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s blundering stroll down “the road to Damascus,” also known as “Appeasement Avenue.” So what happens? Some influential administration supporters suggest turning it into the sow’s ear of all time: An indictment against Pelosi under the Logan Act.
Here’s hoping President Bush not only turns a deaf ear to this advice but sees the opportunity for a teaching moment.
Let’s be clear from the start: There isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act. This two-century-old law, codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code, bars Americans who are “without authority of the United States” from conducting relations “with any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States[.]”
It is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch. As John Marshall, later to become the nation’s most important Chief Justice, famously observed, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” In 1936, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged in its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the “delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]” And, as convincingly explained in the Wall Street Journal by the eminent Professor Robert F. Turner, the congressional debate over passage of the Logan Act demonstrates that the law was understood to bar legislative interference with the president’s management of American diplomacy.
So the Bush administration is in charge of foreign relations. It has a policy of attempting to isolate the rogue Syrian regime of Bashar Assad. Far from authorizing Speaker Pelosi’s visit with Assad, the president asked her not to go. Pelosi went anyway, and proceeded to embarrass herself and our nation by meddling ineptly in the Syrian/Israeli conflict, concurrently giving the despicable Assad just the lifeline our policy has sought to deny him. As the Logan Act goes, it doesn’t get more black-and-white than that.
But is this really a law-enforcement issue? Federal statutory and regulatory books now burst into the thousands upon thousands of pages. Must the fact that a statute is inevitably implicated always mean we should delegate our political and national security issues — our policy disputes — to the federal courts for resolution?
Lawsuits, of course, have become as American as baseball, apple pie and You Tube. But hard as it may be for so litigious a culture to get this through its thick skull, not every problem in life is a legal problem. In a dynamic, confident society, policy disagreements are a sign of good health. They are not grounds for convening a grand jury — and if that’s what they become, confident dynamism is certain to shrivel into diffident paralysis.
It took us nearly a decade and thousands of dead to learn that Islamic terrorism is not, essentially, a legal problem, even though it always involves violations of federal law. The best hint might have come in spring 1998 when a federal grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden. So chastened was al Qaeda’s emir that he responded by … bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa, nearly sinking the U.S.S. Cole, and ordering the 9/11 attacks. Yes, laws were violated; but that was beside the point — and adding counts every time something went boom did not seem to stop things from going boom and innocents from being slaughtered. We needed to find more apt means for dealing with jihadist terrorism because the law, though ubiquitous, is neither effective nor the main consideration.
Still, the lesson has failed to take hold even in the life-and-death matter of our security. In December 2005, the New York Times disclosed the existence of the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. There ensued for over a year a heated national debate over a complete sideshow: namely, whether the warrantless penetration of potential enemy electronic communications — something the United States has done in every war since it has been technologically possible to do so — violated a statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
Should we be trying to intercept al Qaeda’s messaging? How much of our privacy is really compromised if we know there might be government eavesdropping on our international phone calls and e-mails — especially when we know foreign intelligence agencies may be listening anyway? Was the NSA program making us safer? These were the crucial policy questions. But they got no oxygen. The air, instead, was sucked out of the debate by dueling constitutional law scholars holding forth on the question whether the president’s constitutional power excused a clear transgression of FISA. Consumed by whether a national security program was legal, we forgot to probe whether it was effective — even as the paramount issue of effectiveness was underscored by the absurdity of legislators nattering about “gross illegality” while continuing to fund the program, which polls showed the American people solidly favoring.
The NSA controversy was not alone. Cognate “scandals” erupted over secret CIA prisons for al Qaeda captives and monitoring of the international banking system to track terror funds. Did these programs contribute to our security? Who knows? We, after all, were too busy mulling the ramifications of international law and domestic financial privacy statutes to spend much time on anything so mundane as the safety of Americans or success in the war.
And has anything been more reviled on the Right in recent years than the prosecution of Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff? Here you had political issues of the utmost importance: the nature of the intelligence which prompted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the administration’s interpretation of that intelligence, and the state of Saddam Hussein’s capacity and intentions regarding nuclear weapons development. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson scandalously misled the nation about these matters, and the Bush administration, quite properly, sought to correct the public record and undermine Wilson’s credibility — pointing out, among other things, that he had been chosen for his infamous trip to Niger not because of any special expertise but at the suggestion of his CIA-insider wife who, herself, was predisposed to reject the possibility (which turns out to be the high likelihood) that Iraq had been seeking to stockpile uranium.
So what did we do? We spent three years not on these crucial matters of policy but obsessed over whether there had been a technical violation of statutes barring disclosures of classified information (viz., the fact of Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA) … under circumstances where there had plainly been no intent to violate the law and the disclosures at issue had palpably done no damage to national security. Finding no violations, moreover, we were then riveted by Libby’s indictment and ultimate conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice. These were not unimportant matters, but were they worth the price paid? As public support for the war flagged, the administration was chilled from explaining itself for fear of accusations that it was interfering in a criminal investigation; and the investigation raised the powerful specter of our politics being criminalized.
Do we really want to do this all over again?
Speaker Pelosi should, of course, be rebuked for offending a bedrock separation-of-powers principle. But for the administration, the politics of her trip couldn’t be better. The Syrian regime is in the midst of executing a murderous coup to keep its hooks in Lebanon while abetting the terrorists who kill Americans and Israelis. The Speaker’s ham-handed diplomatic foray is proof positive of the folly of negotiating with such thugs. In addition, as Pelosi spoke preposterously of the Assad regime’s openness to peace, and had to be corrected on the international stage after misrepresenting Israel’s position, she confirmed the perception of many Americans that the Left is not up to the task of safeguarding our national security.
That she also violated the Logan Act is an excellent rhetorical point. But it would make for an incredibly foolish indictment. Why turn the page from a worthy national-security debate over the right strategy for dealing with state sponsors of terrorism?
The president can not only win that debate. He can use this opportunity to illustrate how damaging the criminalization of politics is in a democracy. He can stress that policy is something the Framers committed to the good judgment of an informed citizenry, not to the courts. And he can trenchantly separate himself from his knee-jerk “let’s appoint a prosecutor” critics by pointedly explaining that he trusts the American people, not the judicial system, to decide such matters as whether they really want détente Pelosi-style.
For a change, how ‘bout we go with the silk purse rather than the sow’s ear?
— Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
But, Bush is a Republician, and she is a Democrat, Therefore she has the BALLS, And he doesn’t.
Enough said! Maybe, some time way in the future, as a nuc is lighting off, a pubbie will be able to confront at RAT, and slap him across the face, and say, “I told you so”!
I can hope, I can wish!
That’s naughty! ;^)
I think Andrew McCarthy has a good point, but not at this time in history. The situation with the Dems is their unrelenting focus to impeach George W. Bush to retaliate for not only the impeachment of the Bent One, but also for allegedly stealing the election in 2000.
Every move the Democrats make is to weaken their Republican opposition in the eyes of the American voter.
To not persue Pelosi’s foolhardy, in-your-face, illegal foriegn policy trip to Syria is to hand the Democrats a win.
Andy is simply misusing the artful text of the Logan Act to stir up the base, and he's got you stirred up ~ but he makes the exact opposite argument when it comes to the law and Libby.
Always remember, a federal prosecutor is not necessarily your buddy.
Libby didn’t leak anything...and McCarthy said that was a big waste of time....
You gotta' beat the Nancy woman at the polls ~
BUMP
Hear, hear Mr. President, how about stepping down from your high horse and handle the recalcitrant Congress overstepping their boundaries of separations of powers!
Mr.President, I voted twice for your election thinking, you will do the people's will, but as it is right now, it looks like you will cater once again for the sake of general appeasement to the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate!
How disappointing, Mr. President, how disapointing, I am speechless that you can not find a backbone to stand up to the likes of Pelosi, Reid and such and put them were they belong!
How sad, indeed How sad...
I got the ultimate display for Speaker Pelosi. If I were the US Attorney for DC, I would wait for her to come back to the US. Then I would wait until she is on the podium of the US House. Bring the FBI in and arrest her on the Speaker’s podium. Then bring her down in cuffs doing the ultimate perp walk down the stairs of the US Capitol.
For the past 6 yrs, the libs have tried to impeach Bush and with the MSM, have thrown every bit of crap that they could at him. And Bush, the “uniter” and “compasionate conservative” has done nothing but take it. That’s why Pelosi knew she could pull off this Syrian stunt with impunity. She -knew- Bush and the pussy Repubs wouldn’t do a damn thing about it. When Pelosi pulls another stunt and she will, and gets away with it again, what’s McCarthy going to say then? SOS?
Treason is treason. Bush has completely lost control of the Justice Department and the rule of law in this country.
Without the rule of law, our country will continue to go down the tubes.
I agree, Pelosi is an awkward place to start. He should have started years ago, with the series of treasonous leaks of top secret information, for instance. Or what about the vandalization of the White House when clinton’s goons left?
The result of this is that we have one law for Democrats and another law for everyone else. Not a good situation.
The time for wishing and hoping is long past due and is worthless now. Our backs are against the wall. Toe tag this wretch now.
Saying that GWB doesn`t have a backbone ignores history don`t you think? I know the late Sadddammnn wouldn`t agree with you.
Arrest her. Two felony counts. Title 18 Chapter 45 Section 953 and 954. Never happen, but it would make for riveting political theater:
As the Speakers jet is returning to the United States, the President schedules an unannounced address to the nation. Pelosi’s jet arrives in Washington D.C. to an awaiting throng of media cameras. She emerges from the boarding ramp ready to give her statement. Before she reaches the podium she is confronted by a large group of waiting federal marshals, who serve her with an arrest warrant citing her violation of the Logan Act and order her to accompany them. In front of the clicking cameras she attempts to claim congressional immunity. The marshals remind her that Congress is in adjournment and therefore she is not immune from arrest, but more importantly, under Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution the immunity does not extend to “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” and because she violated the Logan Act she has committed a felony. They then inform her that in deference to her position that she will not be placed in handcuffs, unless she resists arrest. She looks to her aides for help. The marshals politely inform them that anyone attempting to stop them in their official duties will be placed under arrest as well. No help is forthcoming for now totally befuddled Speaker. She is read her rights and she is led away, doing the prep walk in front of the world. At that moment, President Bush addresses the nation,”
“My fellow Americans, it is with a heavy and sad heart that I have come before you today to announce that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has been arrested by federal marshals under my orders for her violation of the Logan Act. This Act is one our nation’s oldest laws and goes to the very heart of our Constitutional system. Under our Constitution the Executive branch, not the Legislative branch, has the sole responsibility for foreign policy. The Logan Act was specifically enacted to prevent public officials and private citizens for speaking for the United States when they had no authority to do so. It was enacted so that our nation speaks with one voice to friend and foe alike.
Enacted in 1799, this act was amended by Congress in 1994. Speaker Pelosi was a member of that Congress and is well aware of the Logan Act’s provisions. Despite this Speaker Pelosi, against the advice and wishes of this Administration, chose to engage in talks with the leader of Syria and made statements and promises that she was acting as a representative of the United States. She did so in clear violation of both the Logan Act and the United States Constitution. She even went so far as to misrepresent the position of Israel, forcing the Prime Minister of that country to insist that the Speaker was not authorized to negotiate on their behalf. For too long members of Congress and the Senate have believed that they should be allowed to meet with foreign leaders and make statements and promises that go against the interests of the United States, in clear violation of the Logan Act. Under my clear Constitutional authority to enforce the laws of the United States I have decided to arrest Speaker Pelosi under Title 18 Chapter 45 Sections 953 and 954 of the US Code. I have named Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor for this case. Speaker Pelosi will be accorded the same treatment as any United States citizen under arrest for suspicion of a felony crime and will have the right to bail so that she may resume her Congressional duties while this matter is under investigation. This arrest is to remind members of Congress and Senate that they are subject to the laws enacted by Congress, and that as President I will faithful enforce them. Thank you, and God bless.”
Of course, the Democrats would instantly start impeachment proceedings as soon as Pelosi was released on bail, but what fun we would all have
Investigate and debate. The throw her in the slammer, and destroy her publicly.
The democrats would sure be attacking any republican who did what she did.
Just wondering - what are the strange print characters that show up on some of the posts? I don't see it on all of them - but wonder what they are?
Is there a problem with my computer settings?
Thank you, perfect.
If something like this doesn't happen, if she faces no consequence upon her return, what will they dare to do next, knowing themselves to be immune?
If something like this doesn't happen, a movie - in the spirit of "Munich" (history rewrite) - ought be produced of this event in which this does happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.