The idea, supposedly, is to prepare Congress for a tension-filled moment and hopefully to garner support for a difficult decision, as committing the nation to a warlike stance, even if temporary and even quick, is deemed necessary. Questions might be asked and answers might be provided. In any event, it's done according to the National Security Act. It's the law.
Note that in the last "West Wing" script featured, the president's advisory council said that "the law insists" that that meeting take place before whatever military action happens. In real time, 45 didn't bother. I'm quite sure he could make the excuse that, since few if any on the other side of aisle like or trust him, they'd be very likely to spill the beans and blow the cover.
The problem with that is that it would put the president into the position of saying that the other party, perhaps even his own in Congress, too, would actually go to the trouble of putting American lives at stake just to get in the way of his plans. That this smallness is typical of him doesn't advance the idea that the country, for at least a fleeting moment, can act as one, especially when national security is at issue. There were no leaks, for instance, when Clinton attacked Osama bin Laden in 1998, right before he was to be actually impeached. The Republican leadership must have been seething to have heard of such plans, and probably lurched out of the meeting incensed that Clinton might have been "wagging the dog" and creating a diversion based on national security. But to the best of my recollection, nobody leaked the information. The attack, though it failed, went on unannounced.
Nevertheless, here's the script of the Gang of Eight meeting. That it was supposed to take place on the very same day as the Situation Room meeting, the meeting with the Qumarian defense minister, now possibly marked for death, and his supposedly fateful, final flight, is taking a bit of dramatic license. But that's TV for you:
The Scene: A very small, very private meeting room, ostensibly in the White House. A single light hangs. In the room are the Gang of Eight; Leo McGarry, the president's chief of staff; and Fitzsimmons, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. He says that based on 'overwhelming evidence,'
Leo: ....provided by foreign and domestic intelligence agents, the president has requested the intelligence finding you have in your hands right now. That finding has been signed off on by the directors of NSA, Central Intelligence....
Fitz: (jumping in)....subsequently submitted for review and approval by the National Security Advisor, Secretaries of State and Defense, the Attorney General, White House Counsel, and finally myself.
Member of Congress #1: How are you getting around 119.05?
Leo: The president's rescinding his own executive order.
Member of Congress #2: He's on U.S. soil right now. Why can't the FBI act on it? (The FBI hasn't been mentioned by anyone to this point)
Leo: The FBI's role is investigatory. They're not allowed to engage in police action.
Member of Congress #3: And the military?
Member of Congress #4 (seems like a very big player): Posse Comitatus. You're killing (minister).
Leo: I don't know (which is a lie or at least very disingenuous, because that's the purpose of the meeting. But POTUS hasn't actually decided yet.).
MOC #4: What does that mean?
MOC #2: Leo, when does the president give the green light?
Leo: At the last possible minute. Consider yourselves notified.
End of meeting.
Note:
- The purpose of the meeting is consultation, not approval: That would have to be done with the entire Congress. That obviously takes too much time and of course makes things way too public, so the decision is already made and the required consultation is taken.
- At least the Congressional leadership has a chance to actually ask questions, not criticize, although I can't imagine that everyone in the room during any of these situations has passed on the opportunity to do so. That being said, there are enough voices in the room (eight) to be able to cover most bases before the decision is actualized.
- The idea of the Constitution's checks and balances concept is flirted with but not exercised. The bottom line is that the president is taking action, like it or not, and he has to tell, not ask, someone in Congress. The law requires certain people to be in the room, no more and no less.
- Expediency is the most frequently offered explanation (and in this fictitious case, it certainly applies), but it matters little. Consulting with members of Congress beforehand is the closest offer to intragovernmental cooperation that can be made, but 45's decision to avoid that until afterwards even disposes with that pretense. He's got power, he's going to use it, and to hell with everybody else.
In these national security matters, would this be the best way to do things? One of the first reactions made after the Soleimani attack was the simple fact that Congress had not been previously notified. That's a violation of the National Security Act, plain and simple. Is it serious enough to be added to what might be additional impeachment charges?
Could that be answered in hindsight, based on results? Or is the principle enough? The House has now passed a measure under the War Powers Act, attempting to limit 45's immersion into any subsequent military action without Congress' approval. Even if enough Republican Senators manage to shake loose from the bonds they believe they are in and approve, it's hardly veto-proof. It seems futile and almost a waste, but well--Nancy Pelosi's doing what she can with the majority she has.
Let's wait and see what happened to our fictitious president, who still hasn't actually decided whether to engage in political assassination. He thinks he has to ask some questions himself, and he waits until that last minute to do so. That's also in direct opposition to what we have now. We'll also discuss that in Part 3 tomorrow.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment