Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last[W:159]

jmotivator said:

Which of course was Netanyahu's point. If Iran won't change then they should never be allowed a nuclear program. Everything we have given Iran at this point (reclaiming frozen assets, etc.) should have been offered as part of a comprehensive set of goals that Iran would need to meet to earn them, not as a gift if they will pretty-please negotiate. As it is we are on pace to give the world's largest sponsor of Terrorism $12 billion just for negotiating. That is certifiably insane.

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Is that foreign aid, to Iran?

Holy crap. If we're going to pay Iran to not have a nuclear program, then let's make sure they don't.

Or, maybe quit paying foreign nations that hate the US.

Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Senator Tom Cotton, the author of the letter, a graduate of Harvard Law, apparently has little or no knowledge of the Logan Act. I have never understood that whole "colleges are liberal indoctrination camps" meme when there are so many conservatives with college diplomas - although, as with the good senator from Arkansas, it appears that many of them never bothered to pay attention in the classroom.



View attachment 67181705
Looks like the GOPer letter is backfiring in a big way -- Senate GOP

Click to expand...

Barbarian said:

You do understand the senate has the authority on foreign policy matters.....or do you think that role should be left to your king?

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

you seem to misunderstand the concept of "advise and consent"
the senate's advice and consent is to be shared with our nation's president - NOT the other side

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

you seem to misunderstand the concept of "advise and consent"
the senate's advice and consent is to be shared with our nation's president - NOT the other side

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Despite your deep knowledge of recent political history in Canada and the US, you apparently missed a little bit of history

Iran's "first problems with the US" did not take place in 1979 but in 1953 -- In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup.

The Shah was a 'great friend of the US' who had just a bit of a problem with acknowledging human rights in his own country.

Click to expand...

Barbarian said:

You do understand the senate has the authority on foreign policy matters.....or do you think that role should be left to your king?

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

you seem to misunderstand the concept of "advise and consent"
the senate's advice and consent is to be shared with our nation's president - NOT the other side

Click to expand...

Conclusion

The practices illustrated in this report show that making U.S. foreign policy is a complex process. Both the legislative and executive branches play important roles; the roles are different, although frequently overlapping. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign Policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.


The President as the chief spokesman of the Nation, directs Government officials and machinery in the daily conduct of diplomacy, and has the principal responsibility for taking action to advance U.S. foreign policy interests. Congress in its oversight responsibility can affect the course of policy through enactment of legislation governing foreign relations and through the appropriation or denial of funds. Experience has shown that cooperation between the two branches is necessary for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Anomalism said:

Yeah man, any day now the Muslims are going to defeat the United States military and overpower the most armed civilian population on Earth.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

The Senate's "authority on foreign policy" does not extend to direct interaction with foreign governments in contradiction to the actions of the Executive branch of government. Their authority lies in the "advise and consent"

Click to expand...

face said:

And Mossadeq who dissolved parliament through an illegal and fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yes vote was no better, it wasn't a coup it was a counter-coup. Furthermore; the Mullahs now controlling Iran supported the Shah over Mossadeq and only went against the Shah when he implemented liberal reforms under the white revolution which would have taken away the power of the theocrats so don't pretend like the 1979 revolution was pro-human rights when in actuality it was the exact antithesis.

Click to expand...

face said:

That's the whole point, advise was not sought, consent was not given, and the treaty was not put before the Senate for a 2/3's ratification, the Imperial President has bi-passed the Senate entirely on one of the most important issues of this millennium, now do you understand?

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

The Senate's "authority on foreign policy" does not extend to direct interaction with foreign governments in contradiction to the actions of the Executive branch of government. Their authority lies in the "advise and consent" during a process, acceptance or rejection of executive actions and most importantly perhaps, control of the funding for executive actions as they relate to foreign governments.

More info here

Click to expand...

Michele Jacques said:

Of course, the Republicans just want to kiss Mr. Netanyahu's ring, and the benevolent government in Tehran seeks nuclear armament for peaceful purposes. What's more peaceful than a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?

The Iranian government has stated, numerous times, that the destruction of the Jewish State is one of their objectives. I understand that some may consider themselves non-interventionist, but allowing a state which advocates the total annihilation of another state access to weapons of mass destruction is a, quite frankly, stupid move. Why should we trust the Iranian government, or our government to solve this borderline crisis behind closed doors?

Click to expand...

face said:

Ya because it requires a huge military to smuggle a nuclear weapon into a port. :roll:

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

"pro-human rights"? Revolting against a dictator does not always mean the resulting government is much better.

The Shah appointed Mossadeq as Prime Minister in 1951. He was thrown out by the MI-6/CIA instigated coup because he had nationalised the oil industry, seizing the assets of foreign oil companies.

Click to expand...

The White Revolution didn't take away power from the theocrats but it did bring in some reforms that the most conservative objected to on religious grounds.

Click to expand...

Primary among those being improved rights for women. The Ayatollah Khomeini was expelled from Iran in 1964 after leading street riots which were bloodily suppressed by the Shah's forces. As oil revenues increased, social inequality increased and tensions developed. Being a typical dictator, the Shah put his secret police out on the streets and those who spoke out began to disappear. The end came as the Shah's health deteriorated and the support of the military waned.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

So you think that setting off one nuclear blast in a port would cause the US to surrender immediately?

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

It looks like you don't understand - there is no treaty YET, negotiations are still ongoing. Then there is the ever so small matter that the diplomacy is not controlled by the US, it is a mutual admiration society of six nations.

Click to expand...

face said:

Obama has made it clear that he will not be seeking ratification from the Senate:

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0

They're laughably saying that this clear nuclear arms treaty is not really a treaty and thus Congress gets no vote.

Click to expand...

face said:

Obama has made it clear that he will not be seeking ratification from the Senate:

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0

They're laughably saying that this clear nuclear arms treaty is not really a treaty and thus Congress gets no vote.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Do you think the Senate has control over the negotiations, or only if a treaty is signed? Please note the ever so small fact that there are five other nations involved. Do you think that if the US refuses to go along with the other countries, whatever is decided, that this would have any effect on Iran? Remember, it is the sanctions presently enforced by the six nations which have brought Iran to the table.

If the other nations decide that Iran is complying with an agreement of some nature, what good would sanctions by the US have on the international business community? Multi-national corporations have no patriotism, they will do what increases their profits. We already see this with fake business HQs in tax havens. Sanctions on these corporations won't play too well with the libertarian free-market types, now will it?

Click to expand...

face said:

That's the whole point, advise was not sought, consent was not given, and the treaty was not put before the Senate for a 2/3's ratification, the Imperial President has bi-passed the Senate entirely on one of the most important issues of this millennium, now do you understand?

Click to expand...

Thrilla said:

I think it's worthy to note that the sanctions in question were passed by Congress.
El Presidente does not have the power to levy sanctions of his own volition... though he will try to lift these sanctions all on his own, he might find himself in hot water if he does, depending on the wording of the pertinent law

Click to expand...