Saturday, January 24, 2015

Congress, Not Just Boehner, Is Guilty Of Treason

By now, everyone is aware of John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress.  Given the current efforts by the Obama Administration to negotiate a nuclear treaty with Iran, as well as the long-standing desire of American and Israeli conservatives to turn Iran into a nuclear pancake, political leaders and media commentators have both raised the question of whether Boehner's invitation is at least in part a hands-across-the-water attempt to sabotage the negotiations, thereby increasing the likelihood of an American-Israel war against Iran.

And, given the fact that Article II of the U.S. Constitution puts the foreign policy powers of the nation squarely in the hands of the President, some commentators have gone further to delve into a highly provocative question:  does this invitation constitute treason?

Sometimes lost in the discussion of treason as a patriotic and moral issue is the fact that it is a legal one as well.  The Constitution spells out the legal boundaries of that issue in Article III, declaring that treason can consist of an overt act having the effect of giving aid and comfort to one or more enemies of the United States.   Boehner's invitation certainly meets the requirement of an overt act.  But does it also meet the requirement of aid and comfort?

For an answer to that question, I invite you to take a look at this article, which squarely raises the question of whether Boehner's action amounts to treason.  The author raises three important facts in connection with the invitation:  prior attempts by Republican Congresses to use Netanyahu as a political foil against Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama), Netanyahu's currently tough re-election effort, and the complete lack of notice given to the White House regarding the invitation.  In some ways, that last one is the one that compels me to see actionable treason here.  It makes the invitation impossible to view as anything except an attempt to blindside the President (especially given the timing, almost immediately after the State of the Union address).  How could that not be seen as something that Iran would view as a sign of weak American resolve?  If a Democratic Congress attempted to do something similar to a Republican President, you can bet that the GOP would criticize Congress on exactly that basis.

But the author goes beyond that, to raise the possibility that Boehner may have overstepped his legal authority to negotiate with a foreign leader, or even to receive campaign contributions from him or his allies.  Those are relevant questions, given Netanyahu's re-election prospects and the invitations given to him by past GOP Congresses.  And what we know already demands some sort of independent investigation that would provide answers to those questions.  Take, for example, Netanyahu's view, expressed here, that "America is a thing you can move very easily."

On the other hand, we may already have something that is tantamount to a confession:  rookie GOP Senator Tom Cotton, who seems to have made a rookie mistake by stating publicly that the purpose of the invitation is to sabotage the President's negotiations with Iran.  Don't believe anyone could do something so stupid and corrupt at the same time?  Well, just take a look.

From an objective standpoint, there is already enough evidence to justify an investigation.  But, as far as I'm personally concerned, there's enough evidence to bring in a verdict.  Not only Boehner, but the entire Republican caucus in both houses of Congress, is guilty of treason in this affair.  And it isn't limited to this affair:  take a look at how the Senate is handling debate over the Keystone pipeline bill, claiming the pipeline will create U.S. jobs while defeating amendments designed to guarantee the fulfillment of that goal.  On top of that, they're doing it without debate. Government is supposed to work in the open; only spies or saboteurs get to work in the darkness. Which of those latter two categories does Mitch McConnell fit into?

If Obama does nothing more than stand in opposition to the den of vipers at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, he will be doing us more than just a favor.  He may very well be saving the Republic.  To borrow a phrase, stay tuned.  And pray that someone will investigate this Congress--even if it is only to try it in the courts of public opinion and the ballot box.

No comments: