<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="outer"><p class="title">Some Might Call It Treason</p><p class="title">High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Congress</p>
<div class="details3">
by <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/author/giraldi/" title="Posts by Philip Giraldi" rel="author">Philip Giraldi</a>,
December 19, 2013 </div> <div id="navcontainer"><br></div><div id="navcontainer">There is a major flaw in the United States Constitution. The Founders understood
that partisan politics would inevitably result in bickering along party lines
that would lead to charges that political opponents were betraying the country
so they deliberately made it very difficult to charge others with "treason."
Which is not to say that they did not regard treason as the most heinous of
crimes. The fact that it is defined in the Constitution, one of only two crimes
to be specified in the document, is telling, but they just wanted to make sure
that when the charge was made it was made in all seriously, not to obtain frivolous
political advantage. In Article III the Constitution <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution">states</a>
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."</div></div><div class="entry"><p> Because of the high bar set by the Constitution, treason convictions in the
United States have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason">relatively
few</a>, normally occurring during declared wars. The last such conviction was
in 1952. Elsewhere in the world, treason trials, if not common, occur when someone
is believed to have collaborated with an actual declared enemy or to have subverted
a country’s laws or constitution, to include attempting to overthrow an established
government. Avoiding legal complexities, the Merriam Webster unabridged dictionary
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason">provides</a> a broad
primary definition for the word treason, describing it as "the betrayal
of a trust." </p><p> The problem with the treason definition applicable in the United States is
that it does not cover what we are seeing right now, something that the Founders
could never have anticipated. I am referring to a concerted "betrayal of
trust" by a group of American government elected officials in openly advancing
policies that serve the interests of a foreign country, specifically the senators
and congressmen who are lining up behind Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
to oppose the White House’s attempt to negotiate an equitable solution to the
thirty-five year confrontation with Iran. The discussion in Washington is now
focused on possibly baseless allegations that Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear
weapon, but it is really all about Iranian military and economic power as it
relates to the state of Israel. The dissident legislators include nearly all
Republicans as well as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/06/fears-mount-that-dems-will-undermine-white-house-on-iran/">many
leading Democrats</a> who have long been advocates for Israel. Their intention
is to throw a spanner into the works by seeking to pass new sanctions legislation
which, the Iranians have already warned, will end any possibility for a deal.
</p><p> Neocon Noam Neusner <a href="http://forward.com/articles/188490/a-conspicuous-silence-in-congress/">recently
provided</a> an insight into what is going on in Congress, boasting that "Normally
a party’s leadership will stand behind a president in his moment of diplomatic
achievement. Not this time." He further explains that the "conspicuous
silence" among Democrats is because they are "the men and the women,
after all, who are on a first name basis with most of the board of AIPAC"
and "they want to be in Washington long after Obama leaves the White House."
And lest there be any confusion about what AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby want,
Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.562198">offered</a>
his own critique, saying that he is "embarrassed by our government’s acceptance
of Iran’s blackmail," calling secret talks with Iran "a violation
of the special relationship with Israel."</p><p> The pressure has been so intense that President Barack Obama had to personally
go to a gathering of a major component of the Israel Lobby – the Brookings Saban
Center – to <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.562259">explain</a>
to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban and a hostile audience what he intends
to do about Iran. His explanation eventually expanded to include a complete
sellout of the Palestinians, avoiding the subject of settlements, calling Israel
a "Jewish state," and conceding that Tel Aviv has a right to call
all the shots on its security demands. Secretary of State John Kerry <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-faces-two-existential-threats-Kerry-warns-334283">has
called</a> Israeli Arabs a "demographic time bomb" so security presumably
includes possible ethnic cleansing. Obama should have been embarrassed to subsequently
attend the Mandela funeral, where he was observed laughing and grinning with
other heads of state. Apparently everyone appreciates a good joke.</p><p> Congress meanwhile has been doing its part, disputing each and every White
House justification for the negotiations, possibly inducing the Administration
to respond by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/us-congress-iran-sanctions-violations">adding</a>
a number of Iranian trading partners to the list of organizations already subject
to sanctions, leading to a temporary suspension of the talks in Geneva. The
White House is now schizophrenically <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/192985-state-non-nuclear-sanctions-on-iran-could-be-ok">arguing</a>
that new sanctions are okay as long as they are not directed at the nuclear
program, a ridiculous claim that Tehran is not buying into.</p><p> And the consequences of all the bickering are deadly serious, with many observers
nervously <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/11/iran-nuclear-weapons-john-kerry-israel-editorials-debates/3501365/">noting</a>
that the only alternative to talks is war because the United States and Israel
have excluded all other options. And a war would have major consequences not
only for Iran but also for the United States. Energy prices would skyrocket,
there would undoubtedly be a new wave of international terrorism directed against
the United States and American citizens, and Iran has significant capabilities
to strike back directly against US forces. </p><p> Closing the door on talks also eliminates the possibility of any <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/world/middleeast/jihadist-groups-gain-in-turmoil-across-middle-east.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0">positive
engagement</a> with Iran. The White House claims to be inexorably opposed to
Salafist terrorist organizations, to include al-Qaeda and its various franchises.
Iran also opposes those groups as many of them believe in killing Shi’ite Muslims,
the majority religious group in Iran. Tehran most likely has better intelligence
on al-Qaeda than does Washington and might be willing to share it, but the congressmen,
benefiting their own ambitions and little more, are clearly not heedful of the
grave damage they are doing to the United States and its interests overseas.
Preaching war with Iran is serious business, not the usual Capitol Hill game
of one-upmanship akin to a victimless crime where what does and does not take
place has little or no meaning. </p><p> Some might argue that the congressmen are within their rights, that they are
expressing their legitimate concerns that Iran is being deceptive, enabling
talks to go on while they creep closer and closer to their objective of weaponizing
their uranium stockpile. There just might be a congressman or two who actually
believes that or who genuinely thinks that Iran poses some kind of threat to
the United States, but it does not require any particular insight to realize
that the opposition to talks with Iran overwhelmingly comes directly from Israel
and its friends and from nobody else. The principal Israeli lobby AIPAC has
basically <a href="http://www.aipac.org/learn/legislative-agenda/agenda-display?agendaid=%7bE9465F79-9380-4A00-BAA9-18DB524F23C8%7d">declared
war</a> on the White House over the issue and the Senators who are leading the
charge are firmly in Israel’s pocket. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois is even
being <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/11/21/exclusive_gop_senator_unloads_in_private_call/">briefed</a>
by Israeli intelligence and Israeli cabinet ministers have been <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Bennett-visits-DC-to-counter-Kerrys-effort-against-new-sanctions-331842">observed</a>
pleading their case on Capitol Hill to a very receptive audience. Several congressmen
have angrily confronted Secretary of State Kerry when he was trying to explain
the tentative agreement with Iran, citing information they received from the
Israeli Embassy and even quoting the Israeli media.</p><p> Our first president George Washington was aware of the danger of too "passionate
attachments" to any foreign country, warning in his <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp">Farewell
Address</a> that "The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual
hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.” Though the Quislings
in Congress cannot, unfortunately, be found guilty of treason, there is, of
course, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act">requires</a>
individuals acting on behalf of a foreign country to register with the Justice
Department and to reveal their sources of funds. While it would be quite a spectacle
to see lines of congressmen registering, no one should actually expect the Obama
Administration to make such a demand or attempt to enforce it. The last president
who <a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html">sought registration</a>
of an Israel lobbyist as a foreign agent was John F. Kennedy, who attempted
to force the predecessor to AIPAC, then called the American Zionist Council,
to comply with the law. </p><p> All of the above means that between a charge of treason and the requirement
to register as a foreign agent, ignored anyway in the case of Israel, there
is no middle ground to punish congressmen who act on behalf of a foreign government
apart from impeachment. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment">Impeachment</a>
of a congressmen for any "high crime and misdemeanor" requires charges
being initiated in the House of Representatives followed by the trial in the
Senate. The somewhat tedious and no doubt heavily politicized procedure is unfortunate
as impeachment therefore actually needs someone willing to stand up on his or
her hind feet and demand that our legislators do something to benefit the folks
who elect them rather than respond to those who pay for their extracurricular
services on behalf of a foreign power. That someone would be very difficult
to find.</p><div><br></div><div>###</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>