• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Dept admits: $400M payment was contingent on release of prisoners

Uh-oh...this kind of blows up the whole argument that the US owed Iran any money.

Iranian claim for compensation dismissed in 2009

Now, the question is...why did Obama decide much later that we DO owe them the money?

My guess is it's all part of that crappy deal he made with Iran. I'm thinking those hostages were damned lucky to even be release.
 
Mycroft said:
Uh-oh...this kind of blows up the whole argument that the US owed Iran any money.

Iranian claim for compensation dismissed in 2009

Now, the question is...why did Obama decide much later that we DO owe them the money?

My guess is it's all part of that crappy deal he made with Iran. I'm thinking those hostages were damned lucky to even be release.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of appeals? Because Iran appealed decision 601 from 2009, so maybe they won that ore appealed other cases besides 601. I am still looking into what decision 601 was but I do know Iran appealed that ruling.
 
Peter King said:
Ever heard of appeals? Because Iran appealed decision 601 from 2009, so maybe they won that ore appealed other cases besides 601. I am still looking into what decision 601 was but I do know Iran appealed that ruling.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind this is also a site which literally has a "Countdown to No Obama" timer. In other words, I'm not really that likely to buy it. It DOES explain quite a bit about why some people tend to so consistently be wrong on facts.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Keep in mind this is also a site which literally has a "Countdown to No Obama" timer. In other words, I'm not really that likely to buy it. It DOES explain quite a bit about why some people tend to so consistently be wrong on facts.
Click to expand...

Do you dispute the finding of the Tribunal back in 2009?

Or will you just ignore facts because you don't like who is presenting them?

I think the latter, but I'm open to your honest response.
 
Mycroft said:
Do you dispute the finding of the Tribunal back in 2009?

Or will you just ignore facts because you don't like who is presenting them?
Click to expand...

It's not a fact at all. The US Iran Tribunal dealt with many many cases over the years (and still have more claims to settle). Just because they settled/denied one particular claim, that didn't mean that all other outstanding claims were also settled. You literally posted absolutely nothing of substance and then try to claim it's a fact relevant to this thread.

Here is the case your source was referencing (the Google cached version is the only way I can link it):

2009 Case: (s-ik.)LS)3)

Here is the portion of the text which is relevant, and which renders your biased source wrong:

The properties that are the subject of dispute in these Cases are tangible properties of a military nature that were not at issue in other official (“B”) claims involving Iran’s direct purchase of defense articles from the United States Government through its Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”) program. These military properties were subject to the United States export-control laws in effect prior to 14 November 1979
Click to expand...
You can find that in the first paragraph under "Introduction".

I bolded the relevant portion. The case your source referenced was about properties NOT related to the FMS program. Here's why that is important to remember:

In addition to the private claims, significant government-to-government claims were filed, including Iran's contract claims arising under the U.S.-Iran Foreign Military Sales ("FMS") Program...As part of the FMS Program, a Trust Fund was established with Iranian funds to pay U.S. contractors as work progressed on the various contracts.

...

The claim that was settled in January addressed Iran's claim for the Trust Fund and interest thereon, as the culmination of both recent settlement efforts and the longer term process of settling claims at the Tribunal over the past three decades.

...

The timing was particularly critical, as hearings on this claim were then being considered for scheduling by the Tribunal.
Click to expand...
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp...se-Concerns-re-1.7-Billion-Payout-to-Iran.pdf

In other words, the case your source cites was NOT part of the FMS program and the recent settlement reached between USA and Iran, which included the $400 million payment, WAS part of the claim Iran had against the United States as part of the FMS program, which Iran and the United States settled.

Furthermore, even if the case your source presented WERE the case at hand (which it's not), the Washington Post article linked to by your obviously biased source even specifically says, "But the Obama administration still faces a threat. The tribunal left the door open for Iran to relitigate aspects of this dispute, and Tehran still has claims worth billions of dollars in other cases."

So, let's review. In your hasty attempt to try and dispute a fact which has been obvious to most reasonable people, you hurriedly posted an article from an obviously biased source in an attempt to refute facts it doesn't refute, only to also ignore the very source you posted openly acknowledged the matter in your erroneously presented case was not closed.

Not your best showing, but that's what partisanship will get you.

I think the latter, but I'm open to your honest response.
Click to expand...
I think it's WONDERFUL you want to use the word "honest". Now that your source, which you basically presented to support your political position, has been debunked and your new attempt at partisanship untruth has been thoroughly ruined, I'm very curious to see what kind of honesty and integrity you have.

Will you admit that you were fooled by an obviously biased source which basically tried to tell you something you wanted to believe? Will you acknowledge the fact you were wrong? Or will you choose to ignore facts, not respond to this post and show yourself as having no honesty or integrity?

I'm very "open to your honest response", though I suspect I won't see you in this thread again.

EDIT: I see you are now in the thread. I'm very interested in your response.
 
Last edited:
The real issue here is the constant deception by the President whenever they are caught doing something the people wouldnt like. Sure, denial, lying, deception, is like breathing to politicians, but we shouldnt be defending it just because its SOP.

Regarding the timing of the deal, "the issue is not so much that it was a coincidence, as it is that we were able to have a direct discussion," he said. "John Kerry met with the [Iranian] foreign minister, which meant our ability to clear accounts on a number of issues at the same time converged."
Click to expand...

Obama: WSJ "Manufacturing Outrage" About Iran; Cash Payment Only A Story Because It Sounds Like A Crime Novel | Video | RealClearPolitics

This on top of all the deception that went with the Iran deal in the first place, removing sanctions and giving them money so they would stop developing nuclear weapons. Iran has been playing the ransom game for years, signing the NPT and then using nuclear weapons and prisoners to keep the international community from enforcing the law. And they also fund terrorists to kill other states citizens. Obama is just the latest in appeasers. And the latest to try and deceive us about whats really going on.
 
Mycroft said:
Uh-oh...this kind of blows up the whole argument that the US owed Iran any money.

Iranian claim for compensation dismissed in 2009

Now, the question is...why did Obama decide much later that we DO owe them the money?

My guess is it's all part of that crappy deal he made with Iran. I'm thinking those hostages were damned lucky to even be release.
Click to expand...

“But why cash, and why in an unmarked cargo plane?... The apparent explanation isn’t pretty. There is principally one entity within the Iranian government that has need of untraceable funds. That entity is the Quds Force—the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps focused particularly on furthering the regime’s goals world-wide by supporting and conducting terrorism.

This part bothers me. If this was so open and above board, why so secret and clandestine?

The idea that this transaction couldn't be handled any other way is just liberals attempting to explain away another administration joke.
 
jonny5 said:
The real issue here is the constant deception by the President whenever they are caught doing something the people wouldnt like.
Click to expand...
When you say "caught", what you really mean to say is "have openly acknowledged since the deal was made", correct?

Josh Earnest said:
Jon, this is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn't return Iran's money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think -- essentially in an escrow account. And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.
Click to expand...
Barack Obama: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest

Sure, denial, lying, deception, is like breathing to politicians, but we shouldnt be defending it just because its SOP.
Click to expand...
Where's the denial or deception? They announced and openly talked about it at the time it occurred.

This on top of all the deception that went with the Iran deal in the first place, removing sanctions and giving them money so they would stop developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
When you say "giving them money", what you really mean to say is simply unfreeze some of Iran's own assets, correct?

And they also fund terrorists to kill other states citizens.
Click to expand...
Yes, not at all like the United States... :roll:

Obama is just the latest in appeasers. And the latest to try and deceive us about whats really going on.
Click to expand...
Where is the deception?
jimbo said:
“But why cash, and why in an unmarked cargo plane?... The apparent explanation isn’t pretty.
Click to expand...
Umm, it's not at all troublesome. We don't have banking ties with Iran. We can't simply transfer money to Iran.

And when you say "unmarked cargo plane", what exactly do you think would happen? Do you think they would paint "Free Money" on the side of the plane in glittery gold letters?

If this was so open and above board, why so secret and clandestine?
Click to expand...
They were transferring $400 million in cash. What exactly did you expect them to do? They openly acknowledged the transfer was made, there was no secrecy.

The idea that this transaction couldn't be handled any other way is just liberals attempting to explain away another administration joke.
Click to expand...
Okay, how do you think they could have handled it? Please explain all the methods at the disposal of the executive branch to transfer Iran its own money, as agreed to in the settlement. Please tell me all the ways they could have legally done this. I'll wait.

Again, this is just another example of partisans trying to blow up a story for political purposes, instead of caring about facts. When we have people like Mycroft posting deliberately deceiving articles, it just shows what people's real interest is and it's not truth.
 
Why is the Supreme Court decision that Iran owes money to US Citizens not part of this cash transfer deal?

The US Citizens should have been paid first with the cash, then whatever was left over could go to Iran.
 
Mason66 said:
Why is the Supreme Court decision that Iran owes money to US Citizens not part of this cash transfer deal?

The US Citizens should have been paid first with the cash, then whatever was left over could go to Iran.
Click to expand...
To which Supreme Court case are you referring?
 
Mason66 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-families-of-terrorism-victims-to-college-iranian-assets/2016/04/20/6793f0cc-0703-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
Click to expand...
Thanks.

To answer your question...because they are completely separate issues. One issue is about government vs. government, the other is citizen vs. government. The money sent to Iran, which was Iran's money in the first place, was the result of a negotiation regarding a government vs. government issue. So that's why it's not part of the deal.
 
If the story the administration wants to put forth is that they were abiding by a court decision and had to give the many to Iran, the US citizens should have been paid first.

Now how are they going to receive their money from Iran?

Why was one legal decision more important than the other.

The time frame was almost the same.

This case started in 1983, that is the original offense.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Thanks.

To answer your question...because they are completely separate issues. One issue is about government vs. government, the other is citizen vs. government. The money sent to Iran, which was Iran's money in the first place, was the result of a negotiation regarding a government vs. government issue. So that's why it's not part of the deal.
Click to expand...

When you have assets in hand, you dole them out legally to who is entitled to them.

The Supreme Court decision awarded the families 2 Billion so any funds held by the US should have been paid to them instead of being returned to Iran.
 
Slyfox696 said:
When you say "caught", what you really mean to say is "have openly acknowledged since the deal was made", correct?


Barack Obama: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest

Where's the denial or deception? They announced and openly talked about it at the time it occurred.

When you say "giving them money", what you really mean to say is simply unfreeze some of Iran's own assets, correct?

Yes, not at all like the United States... :roll:

Where is the deception?
Umm, it's not at all troublesome. We don't have banking ties with Iran. We can't simply transfer money to Iran.

And when you say "unmarked cargo plane", what exactly do you think would happen? Do you think they would paint "Free Money" on the side of the plane in glittery gold letters?

They were transferring $400 million in cash. What exactly did you expect them to do? They openly acknowledged the transfer was made, there was no secrecy.

Okay, how do you think they could have handled it? Please explain all the methods at the disposal of the executive branch to transfer Iran its own money, as agreed to in the settlement. Please tell me all the ways they could have legally done this. I'll wait.

Again, this is just another example of partisans trying to blow up a story for political purposes, instead of caring about facts. When we have people like Mycroft posting deliberately deceiving articles, it just shows what people's real interest is and it's not truth.
Click to expand...

Somehow the administration managed to get other countries to provide us with unmarked bills to facilitate the trade. Are you telling me that none of those countries could have arranged a wire transfer if the US provided the funds to convert into francs or pounds or marks?

I take unmarked plane to mean not marked or identified. Not just not having a loaded with unmarked bills stenciled on the side.
 
Mason66 said:
When you have assets in hand, you dole them out legally to who is entitled to them.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how that works. At all. Different segments of the government are responsible for different things.

But if you want an answer you can stomach more easily, then realize the money transfer to Iran was done in January and the Supreme Court case was not decided until April. So even if government DID work that way, which it doesn't, it's not like you can retroactively retrieve that money.

So maybe that will make you feel better.

The Supreme Court decision awarded the families
Click to expand...
But not until after the money had already been sent and received.
Mason66 said:
If the story the administration wants to put forth is that they were abiding by a court decision and had to give the many to Iran, the US citizens should have been paid first.
Click to expand...
That's not the story at all. Additionally, the Tribunal to which the administration refers is completely different from the Supreme Court.

Now how are they going to receive their money from Iran?

Why was one legal decision more important than the other.

The time frame was almost the same.

This case started in 1983, that is the original offense.
Click to expand...
I suggest you review this topic more thoroughly, you do not seem to have a good grasp on the situation. I don't say that to be a jerk, merely to help you clear your confusion.
jimbo said:
Somehow the administration managed to get other countries to provide us with unmarked bills to facilitate the trade. Are you telling me that none of those countries could have arranged a wire transfer if the US provided the funds to convert into francs or pounds or marks?
Click to expand...
Probably not, since those countries are probably also enforcing sanctions (or were at the time). Furthermore, it's not the job of those countries to be an intermediary for us and Iran.

How else do you think we could have sent the money?

I take unmarked plane to mean not marked or identified. Not just not having a loaded with unmarked bills stenciled on the side.
Click to expand...
The same reasoning applies. The idea of an "unmarked plane" really has no bearing on anything.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, that's not how that works. At all. Different segments of the government are responsible for different things.

But if you want an answer you can stomach more easily, then realize the money transfer to Iran was done in January and the Supreme Court case was not decided until April. So even if government DID work that way, which it doesn't, it's not like you can retroactively retrieve that money.

So maybe that will make you feel better.

But not until after the money had already been sent and received.
That's not the story at all. Additionally, the Tribunal to which the administration refers is completely different from the Supreme Court.

I suggest you review this topic more thoroughly, you do not seem to have a good grasp on the situation. I don't say that to be a jerk, merely to help you clear your confusion.
Probably not, since those countries are probably also enforcing sanctions (or were at the time). Furthermore, it's not the job of those countries to be an intermediary for us and Iran.

How else do you think we could have sent the money?

The same reasoning applies. The idea of an "unmarked plane" really has no bearing on anything.
Click to expand...

As I said, those countries managed to help us come up with unmarked bills. Since I don't think the administration should have sent the money, and I do believe that the transfer, the so called Iran non treaty, and the hostage situation were connected, I am under no obligation to come up with an alternate plan.

The better question is why was the money transfer needed then, when there were still unsettled claims against the funds? Cases in which the ruling went against Iran, after it was too late to do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
No, I meant what I said.
Click to expand...
So you deliberately decided to not tell the truth? Interesting...
jimbo said:
As I said, those countries managed to help us come up with unmarked bills.
Click to expand...
Because currency exchange IS something they do.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Those countries likely had banking restrictions, like we did, with Iran. It's not their job to be an intermediary between us and Iran. It IS their job to exchange currency with us, which they did.

I'm sorry, your position is untenable.
Since I don't think the administration should not have sent the money, and I do believe thjat the transfer and the hostage situation were connected, I am under no obligation to come up with an alternate plan.
Click to expand...
Uh, yes you are, if you have a problem with the way they sent it.

Our scenario assumes the money was going to be sent. You're saying cash makes it look suspicious, so I'm asking you to provide a LEGAL way for us to have sent Iran the money.

The better question is why was the money transfer needed then, when there were still unsettled claims against the funds?
Click to expand...
There wasn't, not on this particular issue. The issue which settled for $1.7b dealt with a Trust Fund set up by Iran under FMS. When we cut ties with Iran, that money was still there, but we never provided them with any goods for it. The $1.7b settlement settled one of the claims Iran had against the United States in front of the US-Iran Tribunal, for the original $400 million plus some interest.

Cases in which the ruling went against Iran, after it was too late to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
They are COMPLETELY different issues. Do not confuse them, they are not even in the same ballpark.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
As I said, those countries managed to help us come up with unmarked bills. Since I don't think the administration should have sent the money, and I do believe that the transfer, the so called Iran non treaty, and the hostage situation were connected, I am under no obligation to come up with an alternate plan.

The better question is why was the money transfer needed then, when there were still unsettled claims against the funds? Cases in which the ruling went against Iran, after it was too late to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

America is not first with this administration.

It shows over and over again.

You can't tell me Obama didn't know about those claims.
 
Mason66 said:
America is not first with this administration.

It shows over and over again.

You can't tell me Obama didn't know about those claims.
Click to expand...

He knew. But it didn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom