Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

You start throwing elected state officials in jail and see what happens. You will have a civil war on your hands so fast you won't even believe it. Could you imagine Obama jailing Ted Cruz right now? You would have 100,000 pissed off armed texans on the White House lawn within 2 days

 

I would hope you couldn't find 100,000 people that stupid. Even in Texas.

 

Uhh his actions tell us everything we need to know. Even if you are too blinded by your obamaffection to see it.

 

Pretty hard to stop 100,000 people from taking your gate.. I don't care how sophisticated your defense is. And even if you slaughtered 100,000 now you have real problems because the whole country would rise up.

 

Would you hope Obama isn't stupid enough to jail Ted Cruz?

 

Here is part of my post from yesterday:

"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.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953" (The foregoing was originally linked by Divine Comedy)

The executive branch isn't the United States. So there is no U.S. policy the senators are obstructing."

So what I'm saying is for a policy of the "United States" to be obstructed it has to be some policy agreed upon by the U.S. government.
That is a policy concurred upon by the president and congress.
So I just don't see how that law applies when the senate has not concurred with the president on a particular Iranian policy.
And to repeat, I am not in agreement with neo-con war hawks. All I'm saying is the repubs in the senate can't be committing treason in this instance.

As to other acts of treason by senators and presidents, plenty has been got away with over the last 50 years.
Currently Obama has committed treason against the constitution by attempting to modify law on his own (including immigration law currently).
Last year I recall even the democrats on scotus voted against Obama a couple of times. Decisions were nine to zip.
Obama is an out of control would be Bolshevik dictator.

As to the immigration issue, Obama is helping to blend white's out of existence. It's Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and white countries for everyone.
The reason blending whites out of existence is treason is here "...to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity."

As the founders were white, blending their posterity (whites), out of existence is in violation of the purpose of the constitution.

 

Nope. I'd hope he's smart enough to. However I have serious doubts anything will come of all this. What they did is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and dangerous bull(*)(*)(*)(*) at that but I don't think the will to prosecute is there.

 

Right neighborly of you to be so up front about your fascism.

 

And I just love how you conservatives are all about law and order.

For other people.

 

Just not a partisan sheep.
So you have no proof, just your emotion.

 

Don't even talk about law and order...Obama, Holder and Hillary are lawless

 

The GOP has been wailing like banshees for the last 30 years that Iran is a threat to world security....that includes us.

 

For the record. My original title posed the question, are the GOP approaching treason? I never stated that their action was the pinnacle definition of treason. Unfortunately, one of the moderators or monitors of Political Forum decided that my title didn't suit his liking or interpreted it as an infraction or violation of the RULES or whatever - so they changed it to it's current form.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

 

The Republicans warned the Iranians of this, but the real question is did the Obama administration tell them that? If they did the letter is a moot point, it they didn't then it appears to me the Obama administration was trying to deceive the Iranian Government. Which is it?

 

the rest of your blathering is not only off topic, but just a parroting of 3rd rate racist propaganda found in the drivel of David Duke speeches and other white supremacist/separatist websites. In other words, garbage.

 

Once again, you try to substitute your supposition and conjecture for actual fact. From the link: “The senators letter erroneously asserts this is a legally binding plan. It is incorrect when it says that congress can actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time.”

“We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now,” Kerry said, emphasizing his belief that the letter was inappropriate.

Legal scholars Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman agreed Tuesday that Obama has the requisite legal authority. “There is little doubt that the President can agree to such nonbinding arrangements without congressional or Senate approval,” they wrote in a lengthy analysis of the constitutional questions surrounding the Iran deal. “There may be tricky questions about sources and proper scope of the President’s power to make sole Executive agreements that bind the United States under international law. But if, in fact, the ‘P5+1’ and Iran conclude a nonbinding ‘political’ agreement, there is little doubt about the President’s constitutional authority to make the deal on his own.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-deal-nonbinding-115978.html#ixzz3UCR9us8I




And for the record, here's what the President can and cannot do regarding this situation: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

So essentially, the GOP 47 is trying to sabotage an attempt at negotiation, which is dumb because if any deal is made 2/3 of Congress would have to approve it anyway.

 

Here son, for your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx


And then there is this:


“The senators letter erroneously asserts this is a legally binding plan. It is incorrect when it says that congress can actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time.”

“We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now,” Kerry said, emphasizing his belief that the letter was inappropriate.


Legal scholars Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman agreed Tuesday that Obama has the requisite legal authority. “There is little doubt that the President can agree to such nonbinding arrangements without congressional or Senate approval,” they wrote in a lengthy analysis of the constitutional questions surrounding the Iran deal. “There may be tricky questions about sources and proper scope of the President’s power to make sole Executive agreements that bind the United States under international law. But if, in fact, the ‘P5+1’ and Iran conclude a nonbinding ‘political’ agreement, there is little doubt about the President’s constitutional authority to make the deal on his own.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-deal-nonbinding-115978.html#ixzz3UCR9us8I

 

Valid, documented specifics please.

 

You seem to not know fact from fiction.

 

“So essentially, the GOP 47 is trying to sabotage an attempt at negotiation, which is dumb because if any deal is made 2/3 of Congress would have to approve it anyway.” (theferret)

"Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated."

Congress does not have to approve of an executive agreement, they could just let it be, or like the treaty Congress once terminated, terminated it if there is anything to terminate. The deal might be totally one sided unilateral disarmament by them, but I usually expect that of “liberals.”

As to Obama possibly deceiving Iran, they have to know what the Obamanation thinks of them; one of them was in Memphis taking the same test I was when I was there, they can read too:

“If it is a Vulcan proverb that ‘only Nixon could go to China,’ it must be a Romulan proverb that only Obama could go to Iran (engage cloaking device).”

"If you wanted to keep Saddam in power to suppress the scary Shiites, you have probably exceeded the limits and violated some verse of the Koran. Have a nice day!" (Me, 08-11-05, 01:00 PM)

"Obama advanced a racist argument for attacks on Iran and Pakistan. Making a comparison between the 'Islamic world' and the Soviet Union, he argued that the religious outlook of Iranians and Pakistanis made them less prone to compromise and reason and more warlike.

He said: 'With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.'”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml

Obamanation + Game theory of containment = support a butcher as a cork in the bottle of French whine or in other words, ethnic cleansing.

“he was performing the function of a ‘cork in the bottle’ in the Persian Gulf containing the power of Iran. We removed him.” (Transcript of Stewart Varney interview of General Wesley Clark on Your World Cavuto, Fox News)

There is a very profound philosophical difference between these two following approaches to containment; one is in compliance with the purposes outlined in Article One of the UN Charter's "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples," and could be said to be a Christian approach, but one is not in compliance with the fundamental beliefs outlined in the Declaration of Independence's "consent of the governed" and could be said to be a satanic approach:

"Iran's being contained by a--by a stronger, more democratic, more effective Iraq." (Republican, Sen. GRAHAM, McCain supporter, "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION," Sunday, July 6, 2008 )

"Iran is proceeding now in ways that were unimaginable until we invaded Iraq and basically did what they said, which is provide the Shia with the ability to do what they haven't been able to do in 1200 years, gain a position of dominance over the Sunni." (Democrat, Sen. KERRY, Obama supporter, "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION," Sunday, July 6, 2008 )

 

See the above response.

 

Ahhh, so according to your "logic", Israel can be out staunch ally, receive billions in military aid and do whatever it damned well please. We signed the treaty, so essentially that makes us sponsors of a rogue nuclear state! And you wonder why we're not trusted in that region?

 

Well I guess that's what it looks like.

 

True that Israel never signed the NPT, so I was in error to say they violated it. Israel is essentially a rogue nuclear state when it comes to THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS....we signed, they didn't, and we support them to the tune of billions bi-annually. So essentially we sponsor a nuclear destabilization while wringing our hands about Iran.