Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

  1. #1
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'


  2. #2
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,264

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I certainly would not be surprised, if it weren't legally binding.

  3. #3
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,171
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I certainly would not be surprised, if it weren't legally binding.
    ... ?

    ad·mit confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

    Kerry's not confessing or admitting anything. The deal doesn't and shouldn't be "legally binding. " It's an executive agreement.
    Last edited by brothern; 03-13-15 at 06:14 PM.
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

  4. #4
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,171
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    ... and if you don't get it, like FOX News doesn't.

    The US is not negotiating a treaty, nor anything "legally binding" with Iran. In fact the US does not even have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. A treaty with a county we do not have a diplomatic relationship with would be very strange. Instead what the US is doing is helping broker an 'executive agreement' between the P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- which is an agreement conducted only by the executive branch, represented by the State Branch under Secretary Kerry.

    What's being discussed is not the brunt of the US' sanctions on Iran, with whom we've not traded with since the 80s, but the sanctions that P5+1 as a coalition is holding over Iran. What P5+1 as a coalition is demanding is that Iran enthusiastically adhere to its already agreed upon binding non-proliferation obligations, submit to further reviews by watchdog groups and a few other stipulations. In exchange Iran will receive temporary relief on the sanctions from the coalition as a whole. We don't know exactly what form of relief will be delivered, because that's what is being discussed, but it could be anything from member countries like Germany lifting trade restrictions, to unfreezing cash assets or something like the WTO or the World Bank offering backing or assistance to Iran.

    The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor does it need to be "legally binding." That's because it's primarily a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran shows even the slightest bit of backtracking, the P5+1 coalition will be able to immediately pull back the relief. This is also why Tom Cotton is a moron. There's nothing the Senate will do to sign off on the deal. Not unless Cotton decides to (1) overthrow and assume the executive branch's role in diplomacy, (2) overthrow and assume leadership over Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, as well as NGOs like the WTO/World Bank, or (3) do something very illegal beyond staging a coup.

    The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

  5. #5
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by brothern View Post
    The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
    Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by brothern View Post
    ... and if you don't get it, like FOX News doesn't.

    The US is not negotiating a treaty, nor anything "legally binding" with Iran. In fact the US does not even have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. A treaty with a county we do not have a diplomatic relationship with would be very strange. Instead what the US is doing is helping broker an 'executive agreement' between the P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- which is an agreement conducted only by the executive branch, represented by the State Branch under Secretary Kerry.

    What's being discussed is not the brunt of the US' sanctions on Iran, with whom we've not traded with since the 80s, but the sanctions that P5+1 as a coalition is holding over Iran. What P5+1 as a coalition is demanding is that Iran enthusiastically adhere to its already agreed upon binding non-proliferation obligations, submit to further reviews by watchdog groups and a few other stipulations. In exchange Iran will receive temporary relief on the sanctions from the coalition as a whole. We don't know exactly what form of relief will be delivered, because that's what is being discussed, but it could be anything from member countries like Germany lifting trade restrictions, to unfreezing cash assets or something like the WTO or the World Bank offering backing or assistance to Iran.

    The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor does it need to be "legally binding." That's because it's primarily a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran shows even the slightest bit of backtracking, the P5+1 coalition will be able to immediately pull back the relief. This is also why Tom Cotton is a moron. There's nothing the Senate will do to sign off on the deal. Not unless Cotton decides to (1) overthrow and assume the executive branch's role in diplomacy, (2) overthrow and assume leadership over Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, as well as NGOs like the WTO/World Bank, or (3) do something very illegal beyond staging a coup.

    The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
    First I'd like to point out that the US is a part of the P5+1 Coalition. So any deals that are made will include a compromise from the US. And that will no doubt include trade.

    Second I'd like to point out that Obama has stated before that when and if a deal is reached then he would bring it "before the American people". That is a clear indication that we're treading on Treaty territory. Otherwise there would be no need to "bring it before the American people" as Obama most certainly may enter into temporary agreements with other countries. I say temporary because the moment a new President steps in they can nullify any such "deal" with a simple EO. If Obama wants it to be permanent or have a guarantee that it will last beyond his term he will however need Congressional approval of the deal.

    And lets face facts, no one knows who is going to be elected to be the next President. Yes, many people claim that their side will win. But that is, quite frankly, nothing but hot air. That should be evident in the fact that Bush got elected twice and Obama got elected twice. Despite both sides saying that the other side was definitely going to lose the election. It would be foolish and stupid for any President to negotiate a non-binding deal this close to the end of their two term Presidency. And I would hope that anyone with two brains cells to rub together in their head would recognize that particular fact. And IMO, Obama is a LOT of things. But stupid is not one of them.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #7
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post

    It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?

  8. #8
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,180

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
    And remember, Obama was so supportive of the revolutionaries in Iran back during the Arab Spring, when he completely abandoned their calls for assistance, resulting in all those in jail, or with broken bones, or more likely dead.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #9
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
    Yep, Obama wants to keep things "cool" with Iran (and Israel) until his term as POTUS is over. Meanwhile, Iran will continue to keep its nuclear program going, sponsor "terrorists" and expand its regional power.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #10
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?
    Nuclear war.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •