Government Is a Nest of Liars
Started by Robert M
May 19, 2016
Here
is a quick pop quiz. What happens if we lie to the government? What
happens if the government lies to us? Does it matter who does the lying?
Last
year, the Obama administration negotiated an agreement with the
government of Iran permitting Iran to obtain certain materials for the
construction of nuclear facilities. It also permitted the release of
tens of billions of dollars in Iranian assets that had been held in U.S.
banks and that the courts had frozen, and it lifted trade sanctions. In
exchange, certain inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities can occur
under certain circumstances.
During
the course of the negotiations, many critics made many allegations
about whether the Obama administration was telling the truth to Congress
and to the American people.
Was
there a secret side deal? The administration said no. Were we really
negotiating with moderates in the Iranian government, as opposed to the
hard-liners depicted in the American media? The administration said yes.
Can U.N. or U.S. inspectors examine Iranian nuclear facilities without
notice and at any time? The administration said yes.
It
appears that this deal is an executive agreement between President
Barack Obama and whatever faction he believes is running the government
of Iran. That means that it will expire if not renewed at noon on Jan. 20, 2017, when the president’s term ends.
It
is not a treaty because it was not ratified by a two-thirds vote of the
Senate, which the Constitution requires for treaties. Yet the Obama
administration cut a deal with the Republican congressional leadership,
unknown to the Constitution and unheard of in the modern era. That deal
provided that the agreement would be valid unless two-thirds of those
voting in both houses of Congress objected. They didn’t.
Then
last week, the president’s deputy national security adviser for
strategic communications, Ben Rhodes, who managed the negotiations with
Iran, told The New York Times that he lied when he spoke to Congress and
the press about the very issues critics were complaining about. He
defended his lies as necessary to dull irrational congressional fears of
the Iranian government.
I
am not addressing the merits of the deal, though I think that the more
Iran is reaccepted into the culture of civilized nations the more
economic freedom will come about for Iranians. And where there is
economic freedom, personal liberties cannot be far behind.
I
am addressing the issue of lying. Rhodes’ interview set off a firestorm
of criticism and “I told you so” critiques in Capitol Hill, and the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee summoned him to explain
his behavior. It wanted to know whether he told the truth to Congress
and the public during the negotiations or he told the truth to The New
York Times last week.
He
apparently dreads answering that question, so he refused to appear and
testify. One wonders how serious this congressional committee is because
it merely requested Rhodes’ appearance; it did not subpoena him. A
congressional subpoena has the force of law and requires either
compliance or interference by a federal court. Rhodes’ stated reason for
not testifying is a claim of privilege.
What
is a privilege? It is the ability under the law to hide the truth in
order to preserve open communications. It is a judgment by lawmakers and
judges that in certain narrowly defined circumstances, freedom of
communication is a greater good than exposing the truth.
Hence
the attorney/client and priest/penitent and physician/patient
privileges have been written into the law so that people can freely tell
their lawyers, priests and doctors what they need to tell them without
fear that they will repeat what they have heard.
Executive
privilege is the ability of the president and his aides to withhold
from anyone testimony and documents that reflect military, diplomatic or
sensitive national security secrets. This is the privilege that Rhodes
has claimed.
Yet
the defect in Rhodes’ claim of privilege here is that he has waived it
by speaking about the Iranian negotiations to The New York Times. Waiver
— the knowing and intentional giving up of a privilege or a right —
defeats the claim of privilege.
Thus,
by speaking to the Times, Rhodes has admitted that the subject of his
conversation — the Iranian negotiations — is not privileged. One cannot
selectively assert executive privilege. Items are either privileged or
not, and a privilege, once voluntarily lifted, cannot thereafter
successfully be asserted.
The
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee should subpoena Rhodes,
as well as the Times reporter to whom he spoke, to determine where the
truth lies.
It
is a crime to lie to the government when communicating to it in an
official manner. Just ask Martha Stewart. One cannot lawfully lie under
oath or when signing a document one is sending to the government or when
answering questions from government agents. Just ask Roger Clemens.
Stated differently, if Rhodes told the FBI either what he told Congress
or what he told The New York Times — whichever version was untrue — he
would be exposed to the indictment.
Ben
Rhodes is one of the president’s closest advisers. They often work
together on a several-times-a-day basis. Could he have lied about this
Iranian deal without the president’s knowing it?
Does
anyone care any longer that the government lies to the American people
with impunity and prosecutes people when it thinks they have lied to it?
Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government?
No comments:
Post a Comment