Heeding the lessons of the past
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In that regard it is worth noting the actions of some of Congress regarding the four letter word starting with I; no not Iraq, the other I, Iran.
One might think, after all the news about Administration lies and deception about what the U.S. said about Iraqi WMD that members of congress would be, shall we say, a bit cautious about accepting at face value what the executive branch now says about Iran’s intent to go all out for nuclear weapons. Indeed, you might think that but you would be wrong.
Despite the fact that even senior members of the military are increasingly antsy about the prospect of attacking Iran, as Seymour Hersh’s latest New Yorker article details, even the most superficial perusal of the record shows that the average congressman and senator still prefers to play to the crowd.
H. CON. RES. 341 condemned the Government of Iran “for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”
H. R. 282, introduced April 27, 2006, holds the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and support a transition to democracy (can you say regime change”?) in Iran.
These are not useful, especially when the United States is actually, finally, trying to diplomatically negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program.
That is why it is so heartening to see a few signs of sanity here and there. For example, on June 8 Congressmen Kirk and Andrews introduced H. Con. Res. 425 expressing the sense of Congress that the crisis regarding Iran’s nuclear program should be resolved primarily through diplomatic means.
On June 19 Sen. Reid introduced S. 3536 to ensure oversight of intelligence on Iran. One particular provision merits notice, as it reflects congressional experience with past executive branch interference with the intelligence community in respect to Iraq. Section C requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the process for vetting and clearing statements of Administration officials that are drawn from or rely upon intelligence. Notably, the report must describe how significant misstatements of intelligence that may occur in public statements of senior public officials are identified, brought to the attention of any such officials, and corrected. In light of what we know now about White House pressure on the CIA with respect to Iraq, prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion, this might be thought of the anti-Dick Cheney clause.
Even more direct was the resolution introduced back in April by Rep. Peter Defazio. Res. 391 expressed the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Given the administration’s tortured logic regarding their supposed right to unilaterally undertake military action it is downright refreshing to see a member of Congress with enough spine to actually stand up for the Constitution. DeFazio’s legislation noted:
Whereas the President further argues that previous unilateral actions by presidents of both political parties add credence to this interpretation of the Constitution;
Whereas in reality, nothing in the history of the `Commander-in-Chief’ clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the executive branch the authority to engage United States forces in military action without any prior authorization from Congress, except to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats;
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress–
(1) strongly believes initiating military action without congressional approval in response to Iran’s nuclear program does not fall within the President’s `Commander-in-Chief’ powers under the Constitution;
(2) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-40, the authorization of force resolution approved in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program;
(3) rejects any suggestion that Public Law 107-243, the authorization of force resolution approved by Congress to go to war with Iraq, explicitly or implicitly, extends to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program; and
(4) strongly and unequivocally believes that seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary, but is a legal and constitutional requirement.
Most recently the Senate voted 99-0 to adopt an amendment by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to the Defense authorization bill endorsing the president’s efforts to use diplomacy in resolving the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. The Senate earlier rejected 45-54 an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum setting conditions for continuing sanctions against foreign governments and companies investing in Iran’s energy sector and authorizing $100 million to promote democracy in Iran.
Maybe, this time around, Congress is actually heeding the lessons of the past. One can only hope.
Related posts: