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/...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/...ional-law.html

A less biased link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/47-go...ry?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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

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

[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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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?