Treason?

[AngusJS]

47 Republican senators, deciding that giving **** to Netanyahu wasn't enough, have signed a letter to Iran attempting to torpedo negotiations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/10/gop-senators-letter-to-iran-is-dangerous-and-irresponsible/

Wow. Is this treasonous? I know Republicans would go berserk and accuse Democrats of treason if they pulled a stunt like this under Bush, or any other Republican president. But then I remember that Republicans have their own special rules that apply to them and no one else, so I don't know what to think.

[Oberon]

I wouldn't have said it was treasonous. The people actually doing the negotiation will probably take as much notice of it as a cow takes of a daffodil. It's just fuel for both sides who oppose the deal and little else.
It might make things after the negotiations are concluded a little difficult, but it won't have much effect on the actual negotiations themselves.
But I'd say definitely not treasonous, although you're right that the Republicans would probably cry Treason if the Democrats did something like this, but the Senate and Congress are well within their rights to express their opposition to the Presidents actions in any manner they see fit, it's part of the checks and balances in the system.
Of course, when neither side are willing to compromise to get things done then you wind up with gridlock in the political system. That's a downside, but equally having a President rule with nothing to counter him or her is also a major downside.

[mapuc]

Treason in some persons view

Patriotism in some other persons view

Markus

[soopaman2]

"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."That is called the logan Act. But these seditionist jerk offs, the same ones who wanted Clinton gone for getting his piece oiled, interfere with diplomacy to the point of trying to incite a war is inexcusable.

People want Obama impeached for Obamacare, yet this is something glossed over, or even seen as heroic to right wingers.

I am waiting for the charges of sedition for these jackwagons.. It won't happen...


Also these warmonger fundies need a lesson in international law, as provided by iran.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/10/irans-foreign-minister-schools-gop-traitors-constitution-international-law.html

A less biased link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-gop-senators-broke-law-iran-letter/story?id=29528727

Freaking morons just destroyed any chance of a Repub president. Thanks for giving us Hillary , morons.


Everytime a republican is in office, someone you know dies in a war, the proud mantra since 1991...These guys are not even trying to mask it, they are overstepping any constitutional power they have to make it happen.

Luckily Iran is not as stupid as these 47 Jackasses.

[AngusJS]

I'm not so sure it won't have an effect. I'm pretty sure that the Iranian negotiating team isn't as dumb as this patronizing letter makes them out to be - they know how our system works. But still, what are they supposed to think when these senators deliberately present a divided front? How can they trust us when we say we'll make concessions if these senators are signalling that the agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on? Why would they then bother to make any concessions at all? Hell, why even negotiate?

As to the legality of what these chuckleheads did:

...the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." - from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

[August]

As to the legality of what these chuckleheads did:

Note the words "advice" and especially "consent". Apparently the President does not have the consent of Congress to make any such deal with Iran and he has steadfastly ignored their advice on the matter.

Do you rteally want Obama signing a treaty that will never be ratified?

[August]

I am waiting for the charges of sedition for these jackwagons.

Where were your calls of sedition when then Majority leader Pelosi (D) went over to Syria over White House objections to play patty cake with Assad?

Four other times your Democrats did the exact same thing you're crying crocodile tears over now.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

[Jimbuna]

Politicians and politics...don't we all just love em both :)

[August]

Politicians and politics...don't we all just love em both :)

What gets me is the selective memories of those who should know better.

[Oberon]

What gets me is the selective memories of those who should know better.

To paraphrase from the latest trailer for Game of Thrones, it's like spokes on a wheel. First one is on top, then the other. :03:

[Oberon]

Note the words "advice" and especially "consent". Apparently the President does not have the consent of Congress to make any such deal with Iran and he has steadfastly ignored their advice on the matter.

Just a thought, what about US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 45, section 953?

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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

:hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

I would not call it treasonous, it is a pretty stupid and juvenile act though, but that is the nature of american politics these days.

I love the response of the Iranian foreign minister though, who basically gave them a lesson on U.S. Constitutional and International law:


Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter

[AngusJS]

Note the words "advice" and especially "consent". Apparently the President does not have the consent of Congress to make any such deal with Iran and he has steadfastly ignored their advice on the matter.

Do you rteally want Obama signing a treaty that will never be ratified?Note the sentence containing "advice" and "consent". "Consent" in this context refers to the acceptance of the treaty itself, not to the negotiations. And "advice" in any case is obviously not binding. The Senate is perfectly free to choose whether to consent or not to a treaty. But it cannot interfere in negotiations.

Sorry, according to statutory and case law, these guys committed a crime. But no worries, I'm sure they can still weasel their way out.

And I would rather be able to show Iran and any other country that the US negotiates in good faith, and doesn't talk out of both sides of its mouth.

If the the brain trust that is these senators refuses to ratify it, then at least we can say we tried.

[vienna]

Freaking morons just destroyed any chance of a Repub president. Thanks for giving us Hillary , morons.

The recent proud tradition of the GOP shooting itself in the butt continues. The Dems don't really have to do anything but wait until the few months preceding the 2016 Presidential election and then haul out all the absurdities, hypocrisies, double-dealing, inanities, and all the other activities the GOP Far Right have inflicted on a once great party. The Dems learned the hard way in the late 60sand early 70s what letting the extreme fringe of their party hold sway over policy would cost them; the mainstream GOP apparently has not learned from that lesson. If Hillary, or whoever else they run, wins in 2016, the GOP will only have themselves to blame...


<O>

[August]

Sorry, according to statutory and case law, these guys committed a crime

Then so did the Democrats on at least 5 different occasions since the 1980's.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

Where's your outrage on those?

[August]

Just a thought, what about US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 45, section 953?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

:hmmm:

What about it? As I have noted in the post above the Democrats have a long history of doing the very same thing apparently without consequences.

[fender2610]

What about it? As I have noted in the post above the Democrats have a long history of doing the very same thing apparently without consequences.


Like the old saying goes, "If it weren't for double standards, the left wouldn't have standards".

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Like the old saying goes, "If it weren't for double standards, the left wouldn't have standards".You know I'm quite sure you can replace "left" with almost anything - including but not limited to "right"...

[AngusJS]

Then so did the Democrats on at least 5 different occasions since the 1980's.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

Where's your outrage on those?Some of them sound shady. I'll have too look into those incidents using a source that isn't absurdly biased.

But just on the face of it, there are some obvious key differences.

According to the reporting of your wonderful Washington Examiner, a grand total of 15 Democratic senators and reps were involved in incidents, along with 1 ex-president who was then a private citizen. Only 2 of those incidents seem to reach the level of mendacity that your beloved Republicans just pulled - the visit to Iraq in 2002, and Ted Kennedy's shenanigans in 1983. So that involves a grand total of 4 people over a span of 20 years.

Did any of those incidents take place during negotiations with the country they affected? Apparently not.

Did any of those incidents take place a week after the party of those involved in the incidents broke diplomatic, procedural and ethical norms by inviting the controversial leader of a country with an interest in the then current negotiations to speak before Congress just before his election? Nope.

Did any of those incidents involve not just a few idiots, but almost the entire caucus of the instigators' party in the Senate signing a letter deliberately designed to harm delicate, critical negotiations with another country going on at the time? NOPE.

Not just one or two, but 47 SENATORS from your party just committed a crime, the future effects of which are anyone's guess, and you don't care? You'd rather point to events that happened 13 years ago at the latest, which were kind of similar but not really, just to score some points, just to try and draw attention away from the giant SNAFU that your party just pulled RIGHT NOW? Where is your outrage? Oh, that's right, you don't have any, because the fools behind this debacle have Rs next to their names.

[August]

Not just one or two, but 47 SENATORS from your party just committed a crime, the future effects of which are anyone's guess, and you don't care? You'd rather point to events that happened 13 years ago at the latest, which were kind of similar but not really, just to score some points, just to try and draw attention away from the giant SNAFU that your party just pulled RIGHT NOW? Where is your outrage? Oh, that's right, you don't have any, because the fools behind this debacle have Rs next to their names.

They did not commit a crime! Get that through your head. Wishing otherwise just won't make it so no matter how hard you try.

[Oberon]

What about it? As I have noted in the post above the Democrats have a long history of doing the very same thing apparently without consequences.

I guess they were fortunate enough, with the exception of Pelosi, to do it before the age of the internet. Also, four out of the five incidents in the article were by individuals rather than a group, Pelosi, Carter, Bonior and Kennedy.
Honestly, I think that if they break a rule then they should be punished and I really don't care what political affiliation they are. I wasn't aware of the rule in particular until earlier today, I'm not an expert on US law, but indeed two wrongs do not make a right, and if that would mean fining the individuals involved in breaking this law who are still alive today and collecting it in back payments...well, it might go some of the way to paying off the US debt, might it not? :O::03::haha:

[AngusJS]

They did not commit a crime! Get that through your head. Wishing otherwise just won't make it so no matter how hard you try.You've been shown the statute and the case law. Who knows, maybe it's never enforced. That doesn't mean that it's not a crime. Get that through your head, as wishing otherwise won't make it so no matter how hard you try.

And regardless of whether it's legal or illegal, it's plainly despicable.

This wasn't done just by the Louie Ghomerts of your party, men who would have difficulty finding the US on a map, let alone Iran. This was done by almost all your senators, people who should know better. But you're perfectly fine with it - it somehow isn't wrong because its your party that's at fault. And that's just sad.

[August]

You've been shown the statute and the case law. Who knows, maybe it's never enforced. That doesn't mean that it's not a crime. Get that through your head, as wishing otherwise won't make it so no matter how hard you try.

And regardless of whether it's legal or illegal, it's plainly despicable.

This wasn't done just by the Louie Ghomerts of your party, men who would have difficulty finding the US on a map, let alone Iran. This was done by almost all your senators, people who should know better. But you're perfectly fine with it - it somehow isn't wrong because its your party that's at fault. And that's just sad.

So you claim but the law does not and cannot make free speech illegal therefore the members of the United States Congress have the right to speak to anyone just like you or me.

BTW I am not and never have been a Republican or a member of any political party. I vote for whoever I think is the least likely to promote the nanny state or try and limit my rights as a citizen regardless of their party affiliation. Can you say the same?

Oh and you might want to read the actual letter rather than just the Politico talking points. Nowhere in there do they try to negotiate anything just remind them that no agreement is lasting without their approval.

[Catfish]

Easy:

If "the right" does it, it is patriotic.
If "the left" does the same, it is treason.

There can be only black, and white.
A little media information helps the good cause, of course :03:

[Gargamel]

Eff it.... I'm moving to Denmark.

[Oberon]

Eff it.... I'm moving to Denmark.

Before Denmark moves to you!

http://vikings.history.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ppl_125872_still.jpg

[AngusJS]

So you claim but the law does not and cannot make free speech illegal therefore the members of the United States Congress have the right to speak to anyone just like you or me.

BTW I am not and never have been a Republican or a member of any political party. I vote for whoever I think is the least likely to promote the nanny state or try and limit my rights as a citizen regardless of their party affiliation. Can you say the same?

Oh and you might want to read the actual letter rather than just the Politico talking points. Nowhere in there do they try to negotiate anything just remind them that no agreement is lasting without their approval.Please, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or publish confidential military secrets on your blog. Then claim that it's cool because of free speech, and see how far that gets you in court. Please, try. Just don't forget your Subsim login so you can reply to this thread once you get out on good behavior.

Obviously free speech is limited by law. And you're contradicting yourself anyway - a lot if not all of the incidents that involved Democrats that you just cited are also examples of the exercise of free speech, and should be protected by your logic. Unless free speech only applies to Republicans, that is.

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat in a national election? Please tell me.

And no, I can't say the same. I tend to vote for whoever is least likely to turn America into a theocracy, for whoever actually understands and supports science, and for whoever is against using Bronze Age dogma to determine social policy.

And I have read the letter. Please read the relevant section of the Logan Act again, and tell me how the letter is not a clear violation of the law.

[August]

Obviously free speech is limited by law. And you're contradicting yourself anyway - a lot if not all of the incidents that involved Democrats that you just cited are also examples of the exercise of free speech, and should be protected by your logic. Unless free speech only applies to Republicans, that is.

I cited those examples because the Democrats are claiming that what the Republicans did was unprecedented. Obviously that was yet another Democrat falsehood in a long list of them.

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat in a national election? Please tell me.

Is the 2012 election good enough for you? And why do you limit it to national elections? Are local office republicans somehow less evil to you?

And no, I can't say the same. I tend to vote for whoever is least likely to turn America into a theocracy, for whoever actually understands and supports science, and for whoever is against using Bronze Age dogma to determine social policy.

Of course you do. Personally I think voting for individuals is far smarter and more healthy for the republic than voting any silly party line.

And I have read the letter. Please read the relevant section of the Logan Act again, and tell me how the letter is not a clear violation of the law.

For one thing because they're not negotiating anything. Show me where they made any proposals. Show me where they made any demands. All they did was inform the Iranians of how the law works in this country. Dumb? Yeah probably, but illegal? Not a chance.

Now correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds to me like you're claiming that only the sitting president is allowed to have any communication at all with any foreign dignitary. Sorry but that is just not the case. Either what those Dems did was just as illegal or none of it is illegal. End of story.

[August]

Easy:

If "the right" does it, it is patriotic.
If "the left" does the same, it is treason.

There can be only black, and white.
A little media information helps the good cause, of course :03:

And to a leftist like you it's the exact opposite:

If "the left" does it, it is patriotic.
If "the right" does the same, it is treason.

What's your point?

[AngusJS]

I cited those examples because the Democrats are claiming that what the Republicans did was unprecedented. Obviously that was yet another Democrat falsehood in a long list of them.Uhh, it is unprecedented. As I have already explained, none of those instances involved almost half the Senate trying to hamper important negotiations going on with an important adversary. Rather a material difference, I should say.


Is the 2012 election good enough for you? And why do you limit it to national elections? Are local office republicans somehow less evil to you?:roll: On the local level, the party identification of candidates is much less meaningful than on the national level.

For one thing because they're not negotiating anything. Show me where they made any proposals. Show me where they made any demands. All they did was inform the Iranians of how the law works in this country. Dumb? Yeah probably, but illegal? Not a chance.:/\\!! The Logan Act, for the millionth time:

"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." Show me where it says that proposals or demands have to be made to run afoul of this law.

Now correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds to me like you're claiming that only the sitting president is allowed to have any communication at all with any foreign dignitary. Sorry but that is just not the case. Either what those Dems did was just as illegal or none of it is illegal. End of story.Read the act, it's pretty clear. Does it say that? No, it says that unauthorized Americans cannot contact foreign governments to influence them in regards to disputes with the US, or to defeat measures taken by the US. You can't honestly say that the letter did not do exactly that. End of story.

[Mittelwaechter]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

:)

[Bilge_Rat]

Republican Idiocy on Iran

(...)

After helping to ignite a firestorm over a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, is now sort of acknowledging his error. “Maybe that wasn’t exactly the best way to do that,” he said on Fox News on Tuesday.

He was referring to the disgraceful and irresponsible letter that he and 46 Senate colleagues (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.html) sent to Iran’s leaders this week that generated outrage from Democrats and even some conservatives.

(...)

Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.

(...)

The Republican efforts have so infuriated Democrats that even those who might have supported legislation that would have given Congress leverage over an Iranian pact are having second thoughts. Before this, the thinking was that the two bills most in play — one that would increase sanctions on Iran and another that would force the administration to bring any agreement to Congress for a review — might draw enough Democratic support to override a veto by President Obama. Both measures would surely scuttle a deal, but the Republicans’ actions may have set back their senseless cause.

The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.



Ah yes, the GOP shooting itself in the foot again, how surprising.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/opinion/republican-idiocy-on-iran.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

[August]

Uhh, it is unprecedented. As I have already explained, none of those instances involved almost half the Senate trying to hamper important negotiations going on with an important adversary. Rather a material difference, I should say.

Oh so to you it's only a crime if more than one person is involved. I see. :roll:

:/\\!! The Logan Act, for the millionth time:

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, for the millionth time and spare me the yelling fire in a theater exceptions. Totally different thing.

Show me where it says that proposals or demands have to be made to run afoul of this law.

If you really believe this silliness then go complain to your congressman. See if anyone in any kind of authority agrees with you. End of story.

[August]

Oh and...

The Obama administration has excoriated Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and 46 other Republicans for writing to Iran’s leaders (http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf) informing them of the Senate’s constitutional role in approving international agreements. Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to declare (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-gop-letter-on-iran-beneath-the-dignity-of-the-senate/) that “In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.”
Really? Biden has an awfully short memory.
In June 2000, when Biden was ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Bill Clinton set off for Moscow to negotiate a new arms control treaty with Vladimir Putin that would have limited the United States’ ability to build defenses against ballistic missile attack. The morning the talks were scheduled to begin, the president was greeted by on op-ed on the front page of Izvestia (http://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/000605-nmd-usia1.htm) by committee chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). “After dragging his feet on missile defense for nearly eight years, Mr. Clinton now fervently hopes that he will be permitted, in his final months in office, to tie the hands of the next President,” Helms wrote. “Well I, for one, have a message for the President: Not on my watch. Let’s be clear, to avoid any misunderstandings: Any modified ABM treaty negotiated by this administration will be dead-on-arrival at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . . The Russian government should not be under any illusion whatsoever that any commitments made by this lame-duck Administration, will be binding on the next administration.”
The message was received in Moscow. There was no new arms control deal.
Biden also surely remembers how in 1998, when the Clinton administration was negotiating a U.N. treaty to create an International Criminal Court, Helms did more than send a letter expressing his opposition — he sent his aides to Rome to join the negotiations and make his opposition clear. I was a member of that team. Meeting with the United Nations delegates (with Biden’s aides present), we delivered a clear message from the chairman: Any treaty Clinton negotiated that did not give the U.S. a veto over the ICC in the Security Council was “dead on arrival” in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, unlike the Obama administration, the Clinton team smartly tried to use Helms’s opposition as leverage to negotiate more protections for Americans.



Helms did not simply write to foreign leaders explaining the Senate’s constitutional role in foreign policy. Together with Biden, he went to the U.N. headquarters in New York to deliver the message in person. On Jan. 20, 2000, Helms became the first U.S. senator ever to address the U.N. Security Council, where he warned of steep consequences if the U.N. failed to accept the U.N. reforms he and Biden had passed. And he explained to the gathered world leaders what a mistake it was to try to ignore the role of the Senate in foreign policy. Citing the example of Woodrow Wilson’s failure to secure congressional approval for the League of Nations, Helms declared, “Wilson probably could have achieved ratification of the League of Nations if he had worked with Congress.” Helms and Biden then invited the Security Council to Washington, where he gathered all the U.N. ambassadors in the old Senate chamber for a lecture from Senate historian Richard Baker on the Senate’s role in U.S. foreign policy. (Russia’s then-U.N. ambassador, and current foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov turned to Helms’s aide after the lecture and asked, “Where in the bastion of democracy can I have a smoke?”)
In this context, Cotton’s open letter to Iran is mild by comparison. It contains no warning that a nuclear deal is “dead on arrival” or declaration that Obama is a “lame duck.” The letter simply spells out the Senate’s constitutional role in the treaty ratification process and points out that any agreement Obama reaches with Iran that is “not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.”
The folly here is not in Cotton’s decision to write the mullahs, but in Obama’s petulant response that Cotton and his colleagues were “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” Please. The deal Obama is negotiating is opposed not only by Republicans in Congress, but also by leading Democrats, the government of Israel and most Arab leaders. Are they all “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran” too?
Rather than having a temper tantrum, Obama should emulate Clinton and use congressional and international opposition as leverage at the negotiating table to get a better deal with Iran. And rather than rail against those who are speaking out against his deal, Obama should ask himself why so many are going to such great lengths to stop it. The problem is not their criticism, but Obama running roughshod over the concerns of Congress and U.S. allies. The fact is that any deal Obama reaches that does not have broad bipartisan backing in Congress and the support of governments in the region is in fact “dead on arrival” — even if Cotton and company are too polite to put it that bluntly.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-letter-to-iran-is-far-from-unprecedented/2015/03/11/6e247750-c80b-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I don't think the First Amendment will protect these senators from being charged as there is nothing in the First Amendment that specifically gives the right of freedom of speech to a group of people who are part of a government body who sent a letter to a foreign government without authorization.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[AngusJS]

Oh so to you it's only a crime if more than one person is involved. I see. :roll:Yup, that's exactly what I meant, good job picking up on that. I certainly didn't mean that the 47 letter was unprecedented in terms of the sheer scale and mendacity of it.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, for the millionth time and spare me the yelling fire in a theater exceptions. Totally different thing.Wow. Just wow. You made the inane claim that the right to free speech is absolute. I showed how blatantly wrong that is - free speech, like all rights, is circumscribed by law. Just as there is law against speech that incites a panic, there is a law against unauthorized speech directed at other governments which strives to undermine the US position in ongoing disputes.

But apparently that wasn't clear enough. Please drop your pathetic attempt to take a 4th grader's understanding of the Bill of Rights and pretend that it actually means anything in the real world. It doesn't. It hasn't for centuries. Get with the @#$%^&%$ times.

If you really believe this silliness then go complain to your congressman. See if anyone in any kind of authority agrees with you. End of story.I see. You can't or won't read a simple, short citation of the statute to see that the interpretation you proffered of it was not borne out by the plain meaning of the text. Instead, you tell me to talk to my congressman. Why - is he the arbiter of what counts as a federal crime and what doesn't? What does he have to do with anything?

[August]

Well as far as i'm concerned you Dems can whine about it all you want, I just don't care. But I will leave you this.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/906/your-tears-are-delicious-360x500_1_.jpg

[vienna]

Ah yes, the GOP shooting itself in the foot again, how surprising.

The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

Hmmm...

I wonder whose "constituents" would profit the most from an Iranian bomb and military conflict'?...

Country Joe would be proud:

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,...


Maybe Dubbya can give Jeb a few pointers when Jeb is in office... :03:


<O>

[AngusJS]

Well as far as i'm concerned you Dems can whine about it all you want, I just don't care. But I will leave you this.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/906/your-tears-are-delicious-360x500_1_.jpgYou're unable to counter my points, but also unable to admit that you might be wrong, so you post that.

Ok, have fun.

[vienna]

I don't have to refute your "points": enough people before me already have do so quite well. I don't really like to pile on...

As far as tears go, well, when the GOP staggers from the self-inflicted wreckage of their upcoming 2016 campaign, come see me for a hanky to sop up your tears...


Oh, btw, I'm not a Dem...


<O>

[August]

Hey we'll see right? I'd rather see a President Hillary than a Congress and the Administration in the hands of one party regardless of which one it is. That never turns out good for the American people. Political gridlock is the best form of government for the common man.

As for Angus it comes down to to this. He thinks that these Senators actually committed treason. I think that's both insane and hypocritical given the history of his party. He's not going to change his mind and i'm not going to change mine so i'm stepping off this merry go round and going on to more fun discussions. He can declare victory on an internet forum and when nothing comes of this like i've said repeatedly then i'll win in real life.

I'll of course remember this little discussion and be quick to stick him with it someday when the tables are turned, and turn they will. What the Democrats have done before they will do again.

[AngusJS]

:roll:

I never said it was treason. I asked if it was treason, because I don't know. I do know that it violates a federal statute and is thus a crime. Whether that crime falls under treason or something else, I don't know.

And I never said that anything will come of this, and in fact expressed doubt that it would. If the Republican Senate was ever held responsible for this, conservatives across the country would go absolutely ape. They would see it as everything they have said about Indonesian Muslim Atheist Communist Fascist Antichrist Emperor Obama coming to pass, and there would be open revolt. In a way, it's a crime so audacious that it can't be punished.

And on the level of internet forum discussions, whether these guys are ever prosecuted and convicted has no bearing on whether a crime has been committed. Just looking at the fact pattern and comparing it to the statute and case law is enough.

Because they will almost certainly never be charged for this, legally they will not have committed a crime. They will be innocent, in the same sense that OJ is completely innocent of the crime of murder.

[MH]

It was a blowjob...don't you like blowjobs?:woot:

:doh:

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting article in Politico.

one-third of GOP insiders surveyed think blowback form the letter will hurt the Party in 2016, both senators who signed the letter and are up for re-election, but also presidential contenders like Paul and Cruz:



POLITICO Caucus: Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states

(...)



“The GOP letter — while sound in substance — caused the debate to shift from the administration’s wrongheadedness to the GOP’s tactics,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who — like all 92 respondents this week — completed the survey anonymously in order to speak candidly. “That’s not helpful.”

“Policy wise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one,” said another. “Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster. The Democrats have totally framed and owned the debate, and our GOP senators are getting pummeled.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-republicans-iran-letter-poll-116047.html#ixzz3UHhttxH5

[August]

interesting article in Politico.

one-third of GOP insiders surveyed

I'd like to know who these GOP insiders are that would talk to a liberal rag like Politico let alone dis their own party to them.

[Dowly]

Treason or not, it was childish. :nope:

[Oberon]

I'd like to know who these GOP insiders are that would talk to a liberal rag like Politico let alone dis their own party to them.

Probably those who the Tea Party would call RINOs.

[AngusJS]

presidential contenders like Paul and CruzCruz is a presidential contender? :wah: (Can't find a vomit smilie, so this will have to do.)

I'd like to know who these GOP insiders are that would talk to a liberal rag like Politico let alone dis their own party to them.http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/iowa-new-hampshire-the-politico-caucus-115170.html

[Bilge_Rat]

I'd like to know who these GOP insiders are that would talk to a liberal rag like Politico let alone dis their own party to them.

Politico is a "liberal rag"?

Careful August, your political bias is showing, I guess you missed the highly flattering article they published on Trey Gowdy. :ping:


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton-116040.html?ml=po#.VQRJLWc5Cpo

In this age of increasingly partisan politics, Politico is one of the best and most objective source for what is really going is in U.S. politics.

Anyway the name of the "political insiders" are all listed at the end of the article.

[August]

In this age of increasingly partisan politics, Politico is one of the best and most objective source for what is really going is in U.S. politics.

I read it nearly every day and that has not been my experience.

[yubba]

The last I knew,, or understand and was taught in the Marine Corps,, aiding and abedding ones enemy is treason,, so if,, Obama is pathing a way for Iran to get a nuke hows that not treason ???? There is also alot of chatter that US tax dollars are funding Al Qaeda .. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/03/its-official-us-funding-al-qaeda-and-taliban/

[Tchocky]

The last I knew,, or understand and was taught in the Marine Corps,, aiding and abedding ones enemy is treason,, so if,, Obama is pathing a way for Iran to get a nuke hows that not treason ????

Asking the tough questions here.

[AngusJS]

The last I knew,, or understand and was taught in the Marine Corps,, aiding and abedding ones enemy is treason,, so if,, Obama is pathing a way for Iran to get a nuke hows that not treason ???? There is also alot of chatter that US tax dollars are funding Al Qaeda .. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/03/its-official-us-funding-al-qaeda-and-taliban/So by trying to prevent Iran from getting nukes, he is actually helping them get nukes. Nice reasoning.

So I guess if Obama did nothing and thus had no part in "pathing" a way for Iran to get nukes, he would be innocent of treason? It's only by attempting to prevent them from going nuclear that he's engaging in treason? :doh:

And no, the US is not funding Al Qaeda. It is not funding supporters of Al Qaeda. It is contracting out services in Afghanistan, and this article claims that some of the contractors are supporters of Al Qaeda.

And nice source you cite. Look into the author's background, and look at the articles on the main page, and tell me how trustworthy it is.

[Oberon]

If Obama did absolutely nothing, nothing at all in the eight years of his presidency, people would still find a way to claim he was committing treason.
Heck, the birth certificate crowd didn't even wait until he became president before they started. :haha:

[August]

Heck, the birth certificate crowd didn't even wait until he became president before they started. :haha:

Well of course not, since if true it would have disqualified him from becoming President. When would have been a better time to bring it up if not before the fact?

[Oberon]

Well of course not, since if true it would have disqualified him from becoming President. When would have been a better time to bring it up if not before the fact?

But it wasn't true, it was in fact complete and utter nonsense which had probably already been verified by the people who verify these things. It was grasping at straws, that's what it was, by people who really, for whatever reason, didn't want Obama to become president.

[Bilge_Rat]

Haha....proof!!!!

http://twitpic.com/show/large/aufduf

[vienna]

Probably 'Shopped...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Lol some people make me laugh with how have lost their minds over this letter, screaming words they probably do not understand such as sedition, treason etc. Invoking a law "Logan Act" they do not understand, it is quite comical.

We live in uncertain, frightening times with an elected president and administration that is absolutely naive in it's approach towards Iran and it's nuclear program.Good men(women as well) of conscience can not stand by and remain quiet while such utter incompetence(just assuming to be fair, it is not intentional) in dealing with such a dangerous foe. A real violation of the logan act would have been offering different terms , trying to pass it as official.Elected US Senators who represent large portion of US citizens sent a letter stating the fact that the agreement Obama would in fact be nothing more than an executive agreement that does not have popular support or that of many in the government. Obama, despite what he and his cheerleaders want, is not a king, an emperor etc and while such affairs are under the purview of the Executive for making official agreements, people are not obligated to support or remain quiet when it is so clearly such a dangerous.Fact is doing so would be the antithesis of our system, checks and balances, open discussion, debate etc.

These brave people refuse to stand by and allow such ignorance to make the world even more of a dangerous place.History showed us what appeasement of evil bring, what a Chamberlain will get us, and most of us agree NEVER AGAIN.

[Webster]

If Obama did absolutely nothing, nothing at all in the eight years of his presidency, people would still find a way to claim he was committing treason.
Heck, the birth certificate crowd didn't even wait until he became president before they started. :haha:

that's because the document he provided and claimed was the birth certificate called him a "African-American" which that term did not even exist in the human language until he was in his 20's.

the term for all people of black decent was "negro" which is not politically correct to use today and proves without a doubt the birth certificate was faked.

now that just only means the document is fake, it doesn't answer the question behind it and i'll leave that to you guys to sort out but there is no doubt they produced a forged fake document as proof of his citizenship to qualify to run for president.

some say that disqualifies his candidacy but who cares, he has shown he is above the law, all democrats are and will remain so as long as the borders stay wide open so 10 million new democrat votes enter this country every year.

[Dowly]

that's because the document he provided and claimed was the birth certificate called him a "African-American" which that term did not even exist in the human language until he was in his 20's.
Neither of the two birth certificates have "African-American" on them. In fact, neither of them list his race at all. :O:

[Schroeder]

Neither of the two birth certificates have "African-American" on them. In fact, neither of them list his race at all. :O:
Hush you! Don't let facts get in the way!:stare:

[August]

But it wasn't true, it was in fact complete and utter nonsense which had probably already been verified by the people who verify these things. It was grasping at straws, that's what it was, by people who really, for whatever reason, didn't want Obama to become president.

But it really wasn't verified until after the fact and only after letting the issue burn for a very long time. That more than anything else is what has given the story it's legs. Remember this is the President who claimed to want to bring more transparency to the office. Remember also that it was Hillary Clinton supporters who first made these accusations to help prop up her failed primary challenge and are the origin of many of the false rumors that surround the controversy.

[Tchocky]

Well August that cuts both ways.

If you cater to the crackpot racist fringe who blathered on about birth certificates and released everything they ask for, then you're rewarding such behaviour.

If you shut down and refuse to engage with such silliness, then they receive the blessing of official silence, "WHAT OBAMA DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT..." etc.

[Webster]

Neither of the two birth certificates have "African-American" on them. In fact, neither of them list his race at all. :O:

I was wrong but so are you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_854248.html

Race of Father - African << a nationality is not a race and the correct terminology used in 1961 to describe a black mans race is "black"
or "negro"

Race of Mother - Caucasian << also a term not in use at the time, you were "white" or "black", not African or Caucasian


im not saying he is or isn't born here, im just saying its clear the birth certificate was "recreated" at a much later date is all.

maybe there was a fire and the original was lost so one had to be created to satisfy the need to "show proof" but the document produced as proof is not a genuine document that was created at the time of his birth.

I will let you guys argue what that means or doesn't mean as far as the argument goes.

personally I think it was just a replacement document or one that they had created just for political expediency and no one realized the politically correct terminology used today would give it away as not being original.

I think the birth certificate is 100% not the one created when he was born but I also don't think it means he isn't a citizen, it just means he cant find or get a copy of his original birth certificate.

[Tchocky]

Race of Father - African << a nationality is not a race and the correct terminology used in 1961 to describe a black mans race is "black"
or "negro"

You're still wrong.

"African" isn't a nationality.

Get it together.

[Oberon]

http://www.africaisacontinent.com/common-mistake/george-w-bush-africa-nation-disease

http://www.africaisacontinent.com/

[Webster]

You're still wrong.

"African" isn't a nationality.

Get it together.


according to the dictionary:

Full Definition of

AFRICAN

: a native or inhabitant of Africa


: a person who is of African ancestry regardless of race or ethnicity

[Tchocky]

Yes Webster.

Was there anything else?

[Webster]

Yes Webster.

Was there anything else?

you tell me

according to you my birth certificate should list my race as america

[Tchocky]

Alright, have some snopes and stop being....whatever the word for believing bat-guano rubbish is.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp




according to you my birth certificate should list my race as america

Give that reasoning another try. Or don't. Who cares?

[Webster]

Alright, have some snopes and stop being....whatever the word for believing bat-guano rubbish is.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp


Give that reasoning another try. Or don't. Who cares?

ok, i'll see your biased link and raise you another biased link that claims obamas lawyers admitted in court under oath that the birth certificate was faked.

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/obamas-lawyers-officially-admit-birth-certificate-is-fake/

we can do this all day but what is the point? It doesn't matter if obama is from here or not, he is the president even if he is an alien from outer space so who cares? I sure don't and have said so repeatedly.

those of you who have a vested interest in believing one way or the other will never look at anything objectively, that is all I am doing and all I said was the birth certificate they produced is not the one created at the time of his birth, I never said it wasn't real.

[Tchocky]

ok, i'll see your biased link and raise you another biased link that claims obamas lawyers admitted in court under oath that the birth certificate was faked.Mother of Christ, that's not how an argument is supposed to work!

If you consider my source to be biased, then go right ahead and demonstrate it. Don't blindly assert it.

And whatever you do, don't proceeed under the assumption that "an eye for an eye" is the way to go when trying to resolve a factual matter.

That your link is biased is clearly obvious. It makes a claim and never asserts it. I should know, I read the damn thing. It's a stupid article written by either a stupid person, or one pretending to be.

Don't link stuff like that. TRY.

I don't see how the one I provided is biased, though. Elucidate. Enlighten. Tell me why you think it's biased.

In short,

LERN 2 INTERNET

Although you have arrived at a good point. We could indeed do this all day. If that's a disincentive we can stop.

In the interest of reducing the amount of BS clogging up our dear old internet, then, let's revisit some of the other odious rubbish that you've been making up this evening.

he has shown he is above the law, all democrats are and will remain so as long as the borders stay wide open so 10 million new democrat votes enter this country every year.

Considering there were 11 million total undocumented immigrants in 2012, I'd consider that quite a spike!

Or possibly the words of someone who hasn't the faintest clue what he's talking about.

[Webster]

like bill Clinton so elegantly put it, it all depends on what your definition of is is :D

I do not entertain myself by arguing minutia on forums and parsing words to infinity to stretch some form of it to fit my argument or claims.

I could care less and am laughing at the stupidity of all this.

if you want to argue just for the sake of arguing go find someone equally as bored who has nothing to do but search the internet for points and counter points lol.

I realize GT is a place for bored people to argue endlessly about and for nothing but I don't see any point in wasting time arguing about something that doesnt matter, hasn't mattered, and nothing can be done about if you had more proof then god himself testifying and video proof to back it up. even if Obama went on TV and said it was a fake you would still be unable to do anything about it :har:

omg this is so funny you put so much effort into nothing lol. might as well start a chicken or the egg argument next, it will be just as pointless.

I cant imagine how much you would want to argue if I thought Obama wasn't a US citizen, you might pop a blood vessel or something :har:

[Tchocky]

Oh for God's sake.


Have some self-respect.

[Webster]

Oh for God's sake.


Have some self-respect.

:woot: :har:

[Oberon]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3109/2918567169_86112c79b2_o.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...what about Ted Cruz? :D

http://rackjite.com/wp-content/uploads/r82213cruz.jpg

[August]

Well August that cuts both ways.

If you cater to the crackpot racist fringe who blathered on about birth certificates and released everything they ask for, then you're rewarding such behaviour.
If you shut down and refuse to engage with such silliness, then they receive the blessing of official silence, "WHAT OBAMA DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT..." etc

While I generally agree with you about crackpot fringes (they do seem to feed on these scandals don't they?) i'm ok with the idea of candidates having to provide proof of eligibility for the office.

Jobs with far lesser responsibility and power require the applicant to present their birth certificates so why not the office of the president? And why do candidates (not just Obama) have to be cajoled through political plotting and public pressure into presenting these documents?

I'm usually a proponent of the right to privacy but I think that the presidency should be an exception. Nothing about a candidates history or performance should be kept away from the public. Total transparency for a job with such power.

[vienna]

Were you so vocal and strict about transparency when it came to GW Bush's "military record" as an Air National Guard "member"? I seem to recall the Far Right closing ranks and putting up many walls and barriers to transparency over that issue. I'm not just picking on the Far Right GOP; there are plenty enough examples on the Far Left Dem wing. It's just that I find it curious, when given the opportunity to lead by example, those who scream the loudest are the most quiet when to weeding out corruption, deceit, or duplicity in their own ranks. What is that old saying? Something like:


Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

(Matthew 7:5)


Given the Far Right's fervent Bible thumping, one would think this thought would be given a very high priority. After all, like Hebrew National, the claim to answer to a Higher Authority...


<O>

[August]

Were you so vocal and strict about transparency when it came to GW Bush's "military record" as an Air National Guard "member"

Well yes I did and I don't have to put anything in parenthesis. His military record is certainly something the public should be using to judge his suitability to be president. Same thing goes for a candidates school and college transcripts, criminal records and any any other information.

Again though the birth certificate controversy was not started by Republicans but rather by Hillary Clinton Democrats. Don't cry crocodile tears because the right ran with a controversy that the left themselves created.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3109/2918567169_86112c79b2_o.jpg

I like how the one guy with his hands on his hips seems to be thinking: "How the hell did THIS happen?"

[NeonSamurai]

I like how the one guy with his hands on his hips seems to be thinking: "How the hell did THIS happen?"

Boiler failure in one of the middle sections of the train while moving.


Anyhow, all of this topic reminds me of the old adage, united we stand & divided we fail. I think one of the reasons why the US is falling (aside from all the other internal problems, like high crime and insane imprisonment rates), is that the American government has become so radicalized and split. A country can't function when the different parties care more about screwing over the other side every single chance they get, then doing what is actually best for the country. Both sides are responsible for this mess, and it seems to be only getting worse and worse.

Ironically, that train photo actually visualizes the problem really well. The train is the United States, the two parts represent the two political parties, and each has broken off and is <censoring> the other so that the whole train (the government) can't move anywhere.

[Webster]

Anyhow, all of this topic reminds me of the old adage, united we stand & divided we fail. I think one of the reasons why the US is falling (aside from all the other internal problems, like high crime and insane imprisonment rates), is that the American government has become so radicalized and split. A country can't function when the different parties care more about screwing over the other side every single chance they get, then doing what is actually best for the country. Both sides are responsible for this mess, and it seems to be only getting worse and worse.

Ironically, that train photo actually visualizes the problem really well. The train is the United States, the two parts represent the two political parties, and each has broken off and is <censoring> the other so that the whole train (the government) can't move anywhere.

:agree::sign_yeah:

[Schroeder]

Time to vote for a third party then and show the two established ones the finger...problem is that there usually is no proper third party. Hell, we've got 5-7 over here and they are all unvotable idiots for me.:/\\!!

[August]

Look gridlock is not the bad thing some of you are making it out to be.

Our nation today reminds me of a tricky build on my model railroad. It's already pretty good but further tweaking to achieve perfection can easily ruin the whole project.