• 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!

President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

Harshaw said:
No, that wasn't actually my "point," but if you don't know the answer to that question, why are you even in this thread?
Click to expand...

If I had all the answers I wouldn't be wasting my time on this thread.

So if your point didn't hinge on a "US person" making the transaction...then what is your point?
 
Moot said:
If I had all the answers I wouldn't be wasting my time on this thread.

So if your point didn't hinge on a "US person" making the transaction...then what is your point?
Click to expand...

I already explained it. Go back and read the thread.
 
Harshaw said:
I already explained it. Go back and read the thread.
Click to expand...
Lets both go back and read the thread....

Harshaw said:
Read the article.

According to Treasury, within its own document concerning this very transaction (to which McCarthy linked), they conclude:

"...the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]”
Click to expand...

Moot said:
But the transaction wasn't made with US dollars or through the US financial system.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
It certainly was involving a US person.
Click to expand...

Your point seems to be based on the transaction "involving a US person." So please explain what the transaction was involving a US person?
 
Moot said:
Lets both go back and read the thread....







Your point seems to be based on the transaction "involving a US person." So please explain what the transaction was involving a US person?
Click to expand...

That's hardly the entire thread, Moot, considering my first post there is in reply to someone else, and you even left out some of my replies to YOU, but you know that.

You're itching for a fight. I'm not interested.
 
Harshaw said:
That's hardly the entire thread, Moot, considering my first post there is in reply to someone else, and you even left out some of my replies to YOU, but you know that.

You're itching for a fight. I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

That's too bad...because I was really interested in what you had to say. But all I got was the run around, instead.

Can we at least agree that the sanction doesn't apply to this particular "transaction"?
 
Last edited:
Opopanax said:
So what you need to do, if you want your argument to carry any legal weight, is present proof that an unlawful act by the President has taken place. And that proof must consist of a statute with an authoritative interpretation of it that is on point with this transaction.

ETA: Go read American Ins. v Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). It took me 5 minutes to find.
Click to expand...

Physician, heal thyself. How is a Supreme Court decision which reaffirmed that executive agreements regarding financial transactions trump state laws which conflict with them "on point with this transaction?" It is federal law regarding material assistance to terrorists that B. Hussein Obama has violated. The damned un-American liar just gave an Islamist regime which has for decades been notorious for sponsoring terrorism $400 million in cash it can use to sponsor more of it. B. Hussein, who apparently is your idea of an expert in constitutional law, could have gone to Congress and asked for a waiver, and done the whole $1.7 billion transaction above board. But because that would have caused political difficulties, he chose instead just to ignore the law--AGAIN. Anyone else would have gone to federal prison for a long stretch for transferring to Iran even a small fraction of the amount involved here.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, your argument ignores the justification for transfer to foreign currency to avoid the sanction.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesnt at all. And specifically mentions it.

"1CFR § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in a legal proceeding [involving Iran].” Because the U.S.’s payment to Iran was in settlement of claims pending before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague – which, judging by its interminable length, is a legal proceeding if there ever was one – the U.S. government could use this express license authorization to engage in all transactions necessary to make payment pursuant to an agreement entered into with Iran to settle the claims. This includes the transfer of U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and the airlifting into Iran of these foreign currencies (totaling $400 million) in cash. "

But then that is because this license that you mention is not as open as it seems:

§ 560.510(c)(2) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize the exportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of goods, and of services not otherwise authorized by § 560.525,
Click to expand...

And what does 560.525 state?
"(a) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211, or to or on behalf of a person in Iran, or in circumstances in which the benefit is otherwise received in Iran is authorized, provided that receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses are authorized by or pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section or otherwise authorized pursuant to this part:
(5) Initiation and conduct of legal proceedings, in the United States or abroad, including administrative, judicial, and arbitral proceedings and proceedings before international tribunals (including the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague and the International Court of Justice):
(i) To resolve disputes between the Government of Iran or an Iranian national and the United States or a United States national;
(iii) Where the proceeding involves the enforcement of awards, decisions, or orders resulting from legal proceedings within the scope of paragraph (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section, provided that any transaction, unrelated to the provision of legal services or the payment therefor, that is necessary or related to the execution of an award, decision, or order resulting from such legal proceeding, or otherwise necessary for the conduct of such proceeding, and which would otherwise be prohibited by this part requires a specific license in accordance with §§ 560.510 and 560.801;"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/560.525

In other words 560.525 authorizes funds to be used for legal proceedings before international tribunals and spciecially mentions they can be used for proceedings before "Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague and the International Court of Justice". And even specifically mentions these funds can be used when the proceeding involves the "enforcements of awards, decision, or orders resulting form these proceedings. "And specifically says these funds can be used when necessary to "execution of the awards"


except to the extent that the exportation is also subject to export licensing application requirements of another agency of the United States Government and the granting of such a license by that agency would be prohibited by law.
Click to expand...
Well law just gave them the right to use the funds in §560.525 as seen above and can also be found in § 560.510(d)(2) and 560.510(a). In-fact specifically when it comes to licensing 560.510(a) essentially repeats more of what 560.525 states but instead of funds it is acknowledging licenses.

So you can't use this licensing to bypass legal prohibitions... such as the anti-Terrorism laws that Obama violated.
Click to expand...
Except I mean, you know you it is authorized. Especially when it states: "(d) The following are authorized:(1) All transactions related to payment of awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague against Iran."
-Which you know.... The US was making a payment of awards which was related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.... So I guess it would be allowed when the law states that it is authorized...

This is the language that was added to ITSR to ensure that the ITSR does not invalidate the existing sanctions on monetary transactions to State sponsors of terrorism. ITSR was written to not override those previous laws, full stop.
Click to expand...
The problem is they do not invalidate the exemptions....
 
Harshaw said:
This response has nothing to do with what you quoted.
Click to expand...
Umm are you kidding me? The article says Obama violated the law by authorizing a legal award payment of $400 million to Iran. However he is allowed to do so by law which I just quoted.


According to your arguments above, the payment had nothing to do with JCPOA.
The document, however, had everything to do with the payment.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the JCPOA that has to do with the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal... If so can you please point to where in the JCPOA? http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Umm are you kidding me? The article says Obama violated the law by authorizing a legal award payment of $400 million to Iran. However he is allowed to do so by law which I just quoted.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not kidding you. What you quoted of MINE had nothing to do with what you posted.


There is nothing in the JCPOA that has to do with the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal...
Click to expand...

Great. You agree with me.
 
Harshaw said:
Your article cited the CFR, not the US Code, which was what McCarthy was arguing from.
Click to expand...

:lamo Now your just being purposely dully (or I at least hope)... CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations... You do realize the US codes are recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations?
 
Harshaw said:
No, I'm not kidding you. What you quoted of MINE had nothing to do with what you posted.
Click to expand...
I stated that JCPOA has nothing to do with it.....


Great. You agree with me.
Click to expand...
Then explain to me how Obama is breaking the law?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You do realize the US codes are recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations?
Click to expand...

:shock:















:2rofll:

What's funniest is how pompous you were saying something so ridiculously dumb, and out of your depth.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I stated that JCPOA has nothing to do with it.....
Click to expand...

Now you're just lost.

Then explain to me how Obama is breaking the law?
Click to expand...

That wasn't what you were agreeing with me about. Go back, read carefully, and see if you can figure it out.
 
Mr Person said:
He was (rightly) attacking a source based on its history of proud and open bias, not a person. Might as well cite one of Limbaugh's "comedy" rants.
Click to expand...

HAH!! "It wasn't ad hominem! He was just attacking the source instead of the argument!!1!"

You people are hilarious.
 
jmotivator said:
HAH!! "It wasn't ad hominem! He was just attacking the source instead of the argument!!1!"

You people are hilarious.
Click to expand...

Who's you people?


Anyway, I hope you make sure to call out your fellow conservatives when they jeer at online publications similar to National Review, say, ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. Can't have those "ad hominems" flying around, now can we?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Actually it doesnt at all. And specifically mentions it.

"1CFR § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in a legal proceeding [involving Iran].” Because the U.S.’s payment to Iran was in settlement of claims pending before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague – which, judging by its interminable length, is a legal proceeding if there ever was one – the U.S. government could use this express license authorization to engage in all transactions necessary to make payment pursuant to an agreement entered into with Iran to settle the claims. This includes the transfer of U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and the airlifting into Iran of these foreign currencies (totaling $400 million) in cash. "
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting? The law doesn't specifically state anything about the $400 million.

As I already pointed out, the license section that you reference SPECIFICALLY states that this license authority does not extend to transactions specifically prohibited by previous law, and section 1CFR § 560.204 already prohibits the transfer of that money to the Iranian government as they are a state sponsor of terror.


And what does 560.525 state?

Etc. etc.

In other words 560.525 authorizes funds to be used for legal proceedings before international tribunals and spciecially mentions they can be used for proceedings before "Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague and the International Court of Justice". And even specifically mentions these funds can be used when the proceeding involves the "enforcements of awards, decision, or orders resulting form these proceedings. "And specifically says these funds can be used when necessary to "execution of the awards"

Well law just gave them the right to use the funds in §560.525 as seen above and can also be found in § 560.510(d)(2) and 560.510(a). In-fact specifically when it comes to licensing 560.510(a) essentially repeats more of what 560.525 states but instead of funds it is acknowledging licenses.
Click to expand...

The law in question is NOT §560.525, it is §560.204 and §560.510(c)(2). The latter prohibits any transfers prohibited in previous law, and the former prohibits transfers to Iran, even in cases of previously agreed transactions, because Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.




Except I mean, you know you it is authorized. Especially when it states: "(d) The following are authorized:(1) All transactions related to payment of awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague against Iran."
-Which you know.... The US was making a payment of awards which was related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.... So I guess it would be allowed when the law states that it is authorized...
Click to expand...





Again, no it didn't. The law is very clear that it does not supersede any previous law that prohibits transfer of funds. §560.204 does just that!

What ITSR does is allow a frame work of trade of goods and services not already prohibited by previous law. But since ITSR did not remove §560.204 from the books, the transfer in question was illegal.

The problem is they do not invalidate the exemptions....
Click to expand...

The law specifically states that it doesn't supersede previous legal prohibitions.
 
Mr Person said:
Who's you people?
Click to expand...

There are three of you people. There is the one who made the ad hominem argument, and the two of you who don't seem to grasp what ad hominem is but blindly defend the first person anyway.
 
Mr Person said:
Who's you people?


Anyway, I hope you make sure to call out your fellow conservatives when they jeer at online publications similar to National Review, say, ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. Can't have those "ad hominems" flying around, now can we?
Click to expand...

Attacking the source is attacking the source, no matter who the source is. And ThinkProgress or Moveon.org are not comparable to National Review; something such as The Atlantic would be.

You really don't know a THING about National Review, do you?
 
Visbek said:
Egads.

There was no "transaction." No goods or services were supplied. It was the reversal of a transaction, legally agreed to between the US and the Shah before the Revolution.

The Shah bought a bunch of planes; after the Revolution, the US refused to deliver. The case has been tied up in court for decades, and it was likely the US was going to lose. Rather than pay massive amounts of interest, we settled.

This is nothing more than typical scaremongering about Iran, and hatred of Obama wrapped into one. Must be Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Pretty convenient to take money from a country then pass a law prohibiting paying it back. Good business if you can get it.
 
Harshaw said:
Now you're just lost.
Click to expand...
Im not at all.


That wasn't what you were agreeing with me about. Go back, read carefully, and see if you can figure it out.
Click to expand...
My agreement that Obama did not break the law and that there is no agreement on the books that does not allow the US to authorize to transfer funds awarded by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal to Iran?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Im not at all.
Click to expand...

You are, much like you were about the difference between the US Code and the CFR.

Hence your confusion:

My agreement that Obama did not break the law and that there is no agreement on the books that does not allow the US to authorize to transfer funds awarded by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal to Iran?
Click to expand...

No. But I tire of having to explain things to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom