“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm. I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”
—- Sen. John McCain (R-Az) to Politico, explaining and making excuses for 47 Republican Senators injecting themselves into sensitive U.S. negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapon development..
1. I am speechless. Luckily, I can type.
Well, sort of.
2. The silver lining: at least the Senator just made those regretting President Obama’s election in 2008 feel better. We were spared embarrassing moments like that of President McCain, asked why he sent missiles to destroy Toronto, explaining, “Yeah, I was watching “Family Feud,” had to run to the can, and was distracted. Hey, it happens.”
3. This is an admission of incompetence, recklessness, and jaw-dropping irresponsible behavior. Here’s a little tip—in fact, it’s a well-known tenet of ethical decision-making and avoiding group think, stampedes and mass stupidly.
Ladies and Gentlemen, behavioral scientist Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, from his rules for avoiding unethical decisions in group situations:
Beware of mental fatigue and half-baked decisions.
Insist on a second opinion, and delay when under pressure.
Train your mental and intuitive systems to sense when something isn’t right before you know what or why.
4. But you shouldn’t need Zimbardo, Senator. How about recalling the helpful hint for U.S. Senators, “Don’t make decisions that may help plunge the world into an Apocalypse without thinking them through because you really, really don’t want to get stuck in the snow”?
5. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”
This is naked and stupid consequentialism. So it would have been acceptable to make such a consequential decision without thinking it through if there wasn’t blowback? Bad decisions aren’t bad unless people complain? Good decisions become bad if the polling is negative? There is no interpretation of this statement that is ethical or that makes McCain seem anything other than feckless, irresponsible, and unqualified to serve.
6. Way to throw your colleagues under the bus, John. They made a bad decision, but because you made it by placing your transportation comfort above the welfare of the nation and the world doesn’t mean they did.
Though I wouldn’t be surprised..
7. Which is worse—violating the Separation of Powers and throwing a monkey wrench into sensitive diplomatic relations after carefully weighing the goals, principles and consequences, which means you are not very good at weighing goals, principles and consequences, or doing so without bothering to think it through at all?
In the Reginald Rose drama “Twelve Angry Men” (which I will direct for the fourth time as the farewell production of my theater company this summer, which is closing after 20 years), one juror switches his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” in a capital murder case because he’s sick of the arguing, wants to go home, and the tide has shifted to the “not guilty” side. Another juror, who also has voted “not guilty,” confronts him and calls his conduct a disgrace.
And so it is.
Ethics Alarms 
What are your thoughts on using time, distance, etc. as a lever for forcing settlements? For example, if a judge is trying to get the parties to settle a case, what if he threatens to schedule trial for the time around a major holiday if they don’t reach settlement or right when the lawyer who is holding up the resolution of the case is scheduled to take a vacation? If I am local and my opponent is not, suppose I insist on having all matters early in the morning to make him travel (strictly because my schedule conflicts, of course)? Oh, and my personal favorite – what if there are two matters scheduled for trial on the same day and the judge, when asked which one will proceed, says “Have both of them ready to go, and I’ll decide that morning, or you could always settle one?” resulting in the attorney who has both matters running himself ragged that weekend trying to have both ready.?
I hate it. It’s unethical: forcing an artificial deadline that will result in ill-considered choices with life-changing consequences.
99 times out of 100 that isn’t what happens. The attorneys drag themselves into court by hook or by crook, vacations get canceled, you bust your butt every night and through the weekend to be ready. Your wife may be pissed that her trip to Florida is being postponed and the kids may whine for a while that they don’t get to see Mickey mouse, but if it’s either that or lose a client, because that’s what’s going to happen if you short them, I think you know which way you go.
This isn’t a constitutional issue. This is possibly a Logan Act issue…
For it to be a constitutional issue, the Senate had to act as a Senate. It didn’t. This was just a large splinter group of yahoos acting from presumed positions of senators to act independently of the senate. I don’t care if McConnell put his name on it- there was no deliberation or even a vote regarding this letter. It wasn’t an act of the Senate. That may seem like quibbling but it is is a distinction with a difference.
Now, if this can be shown to be a for sure Logan Act violation, but the senators involved truly felt that drastic action was necessary, then they are ethically obligated to assume the consequences for their actions and resign. If stopping a nuclear Iran is really important enough to violate the Act, then so be it, but they must then turn in their stripes.
Further evidence this wasn’t thought through. I still say the right course was to draft a letter to the President listing what terms they want the executive to pursue, clearly lining out deal breaking and deal making terms… Then pass that with a senatorial vote on to the executive.
It’s not quibbling, but I think it’s a distinction without a difference. It is perceived by the recipients as an official act, vote or not. It really does violate the spirit of the Separation of Powers, and the Constitution.
I agree with texagg04. It is a distinction with a difference I am not an expert on the provisions of the Logan Act (or Logan’s Run, for that matter, though I am not sure what that has to do with this comment , but . . . ) but the senators’ letter should not be considered an act of the entire Senate. It was not voted on by the Senate and it wasn’t debated in Congress. It should be treated as the act of partisan players in the Congress who wanted to rein in what they considered Obama’s unconstitutional extension of executive powers and embarrass the President. Though the form of the letterhead is problematic as it infers that is coming from the senate and not a group of partisan hacks looking to stick it in the President’s eye.
As McCain, the ubiquitous apostate, demonstrates in his nonsensical statement, the letter wasn’t clearly thought through, thereby leaving the signatories to the letter with proverbial egg on their faces. Furthermore, Senator Tom Cotton showed real strength of character by putting the letter on his website and not sending it directly to the ever peaceloving and approachable mullahs.
If the signatories to the letter truly disagreed with the President, then they should have directed the communication to him and the Secretary of State, expressing their concerns over what they perceived as a terrible agreement with Iran. That would have been ethical and it would have shown real leadership.
jvb
I never said it should be considered an “act of the entire Senate.”
I said that it appears to the Iranians as an official act, whether it is or not. The Senate could have had a vote on a non-binding resolution regarding the treaty that the GOP lost with only 47 votes. Would that have more impact—it’s REALLY official—or less? I’m guessing less.
I agree. That is how it would look to the Iranians. I am not sure about the non-binding resolution. That would have been more interesting from a political point of view.
jvb
I have said this before, and I’m sure I will say it again, if any of these Senators believed for a second that the Iranian government, such as it is, does not know EXACTLY what is required, by the Constitution, to ratify a treaty, then we have even more reason for them to resign, NOW. By the bye, have you heard Kerry’s latest? Apparently, Obama is going to reach an agreement with Iran and honor it, despite it having NO LEGAL STANDING! Even more one-upmanship. Bunch of kids in Kindergarten arguing over the crayons. Despicable.
Except the crayons are nukes…
Dragin…you are absolutely correct. Those in the Iranian government don’t need a first grade lecture on how our government works. Jesus, they even know how to tweet. I don’t even know how to tweet…and for good reason.
Be honest with you, I don’t WANT to know how to tweet. Keeps my Universe manageable.
Exactly the point, Tex. Easily recognizable. Or was it? Guess it depends on who was reading it.
What is the difference between the letter sent to Iran by a group of Senators, and the lobbying-group gallivanting to various countries (which I recall knowing about most often during the time I worked in the State Department) called “CODELs” (for Congressional Delegation)? Foregone per diem?
So they had to pass it to find out what was in it? (Where have I heard that before?) Morons. But when a majority of voters willingly and repeatedly put people like McCain, Pelosi, Boxer, McConnell, etc., etc. (ad nauseam) back into office for term after term for decades on end, we probably shouldn’t expect anything else.
A very good friend interned for then Senator from Arizona Dennis DeConcini. This sort of nonchalance is exactly what my friend observed first hand. The Senate might as well be a frat house.