That's exactly right.
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
impeach impeach IMPEACH HER!!!
if you can
otherwise give endless calls for her resignation.
Not so much. The dems understand the whip only. What was that dem orchestrated House rule that targeted Tom Delay for the jury-searched indictment for retroactively violating a law? Oh, yeah...an indicted congressman cannot hold a leadership position!
Simple. Get an indictment. Gonzales announces said indictment (machiavellian poetry). Whether there will be a conviction is immaterial (though, trials of speaker’s of the house serve as a nice rejoinder to the house’s hearings ad nauseum). Pelosi, by her own rules, must resign her speaker’s position. The president’s poll numbers cant be hurt (any more). The impeachment threat doesnt stand. Now that the dems can smell the glove...can we work together now? are you going to cut the S? Or do I need to hit you again? We can indict Democrat congressmen ALL DAY LONG and dont have to stretch a point of law to do it (unlike your specter-backed judiciary committee charades). And we have the will to do it (that would be refreshing).
Pelosi cannot stand. It is, after all, good vs. evil. And good must prevail. Pansy responses like that the article’s author suggest give the other side the sense that they will never be truly held to account and can proceed with impunity. It is this type of counsel, then, that is partially responsible for the democrat behavior (failure to discipline the child when he/she was young).
Pelosi must be indicted. Gonzales should announce the indictment. An indicted member cannot keep a leadership position. Pelosi is stripped of the speaker position. Smell the glove, america-haters, now, do you want another piece of this (we got plenty of members to indict....for REAL crimes). Or are you going to cut the S.? Speaker Hoyer...hmm, speaking to known sponsors of terrorism...seems like aiding and abetting...indict...NEXT!..who’s the 3rd choice for speaker? We can get a majority back simply by arresting the felons on the Hill.
The question is how one properly reprimands Pelosi without going nuclear. The best solution that I can devise is to clip her wings literally, and hold back long-range government aircraft for the remainder of her hopefully two-year tenure. I'm sure Syria will do enough in the next while to make Damascus Nancy as good a name as Hanoi Jane.
Ridicule would be best. She pushed all that pork in the Iraq funding bill, including the utterly urgent spinach and tropical fish subsidies. I recommend referring to her henceforth as “the Tropical Fish Lady” or the “Fish Salad Lady” or the “Baghdad Fish Salad Lady.”
Sorry to disagree with Andy here, but if Newt would have done this during the Clinton years, David Bonior and Nancy Pelosi would have pushed for him to be indicted. Recall Pelosi was part of the leadership back then.
Damascus Salad
That's exactly right.
Here, the Dems will perceive the aggressive pursuit of criminal charges as strength, and the course of action recommended by the author as weakness--which will only incite the Democrats further.Is it me, or is it becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the mentality of communist, socialist, fascist, and terrorist organizations and our own democrat party?
I swear, all you have to do is replace the word 'Dems' and 'Democrats' in your statement with any of those and it would look like a valid statement in the appropriate context.
...which will only incite the terrorists further...
Pelosi, Waxman & Hoyer were trying to make a plead deal with the terrorists
Haven't you heard? Pelosi is a Democrat. Democrats are above, beyond, and immune from the law.
Besides, she is just following precedent set by Jesse Jackson himself, and we all know that Jesse is the king when it comes to having unauthorized relations with foreign governments.
Ooooh. I like it! Nice, backhanded way of smacking her down while appearing to take the moral high road.
BULL CRAP!!!!
Bela Peloski needs to be tryed under the Logan Act, along with the three Republicans that went with her, and booted out of office....never to return!
She is trying to run the Government, excuse me, but I did not vote Peloski as President, I voted George W. Bush as President and until his term is over, that is who I expect to run this country!!!
A debate is a good idea. Democrats so far have shown they fear debates. Does Nancy Pelosi have a stronger backbone than Obama, Hillary, and Edwards?
Nope...it's not you. Shhhhh, we're not supposed to talk about in public though. Folks don't like that kind of talk.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Leftist Liberal Democrats have gotten a free pass for too long. Nancy needs to pay a dear price for what she has done.
This one needs to be persued to the end instead of swept under the rug. I agree with the position of trying her in the court of public opinion. That can be done on the TV news by pundits and bloggers upon idictment. Just as it was for Scooter Libby.
If this action is allowed to stand without legal action, 08 may be lost. The conservative base will be further alienated by a lack of strength and may well sit home in greater numbers than 06.
Many people here on FR blame those folks, but I offer that people want their positions represented and when they aren’t, a price is paid called lack of support. Some call it RINO syndrome. Does the GOP want to be ‘taught another lesson’? Prosecution of Nancy Pelosi would demonstrate that a lesson was learned. Bush’s latest immigration speech shows that lesson was heard as he shifted a bit to the right on that subject. Now it is time to show it was learned and not just heard.
I read about people posing the Newt example. I am no fan on President Clinton but I respect the office of President and what the Executive branch holds when it comes to due power. Had Newt done something like this, he would have, and should have been prosecuted.
Nancy Pelosi should be prosecuted to show everyone that that anarchy of the Leftist Democrats will no longer be tolerated. They must be reminded that actions have consequences. Now is the time and this is the example to do it properly. Maybe the American people could even gain an education about the three branches, and what their PROPER role is in our government in the process.
Prosecute Pelosi. Do it now.
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.