The Republicans' letter to Iran

[Sarpedon]

And then there is the obvious issue that in order to keep international sanctions in place, we need the cooperation of other nations.

If Benjamin Netanyahu and congressional buffoons torpedo the talks, other countries will walk away from the sanctions.

 

[maxparrish]

You mean an honest letter that is factually correct, causes mistrust? Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Sure you want to go there?

It violates the norms of international law and diplomacy and violates past precedent from thousands of past agreements entered into by the US in a similar manner - the Republicans are effectively threatening to violate such norms because they think they can get away with it under domestic law. Exactly like the Iranian hardliners have always suspected and now have had confirmed for them by this disgusting move.

If you mean that under international law an agreement is considered binding, you may be correct. And while the 'norms' of international law in the real world is that they are constantly being violated by many nations (including by Iran) I am unclear if you are 'disgusted' because they threaten to violate international law, or if it is because you believe it to be offensive to the President's constitutional role.

Before commenting further, perhaps you would clarify.

 

[bilby]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

The letter went well beyond not supporting the president. It was essentially providing advice to the Iranians, trying to help them out by urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted.

As Obama pointed out, this is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why it is considered borderline treasonous by some; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. This 'terrible' letter laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that only Congress can approve a treaty that is durable beyond the remainder of Obama's term. b) After Obama leaves, many members of Congress will remain in place.

In other words, the message is that Congress needs to be a part of the process.

Exactly what the Senators thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their unhappiness, is unclear. The letter's effect (even without the controversy) would be as likely to prompt a quick deal with Obama (to avoid the chances of a more hostile new administration and Congress) as it would to derail negotiations. Perhaps they thought Iran might actually demand a treaty version of the agreement?

But a dumb idea is not necessarily a 'traitorous' or 'evil' idea. And it certainly is not unprecedented or a violation of the Logan act (which, by the way, has nothing to do with treason).

By the way, 'the hardliners' are not our enemy, all of Iran is our enemy...which are those who currently run its government.

Mr Capone's associates were not being intimidating, and to suggest that they were doing something wrong is hyperbolic nonsense.

Their 'threats' laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that the plaintiff's shop contains a number of flammable items. b) That it would be a great shame if someone was to be careless with a match.

In other words, the message that some kind of insurance policy would be a wise choice.

Exactly what Mr Capone's associates thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their concern, is unclear. Their statement's effect would be as likely to prompt a call to a fire insurance company as it would to intimidate.

But a dumb idea is not necessarily an 'intimidating' or 'evil' idea.

 

[maxparrish]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

The letter went well beyond not supporting the president. It was essentially providing advice to the Iranians, trying to help them out by urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted.

As Obama pointed out, this is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why it is considered borderline treasonous by some; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. This 'terrible' letter laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that only Congress can approve a treaty that is durable beyond the remainder of Obama's term. b) After Obama leaves, many members of Congress will remain in place.

In other words, the message is that Congress needs to be a part of the process.

Exactly what the Senators thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their unhappiness, is unclear. The letter's effect (even without the controversy) would be as likely to prompt a quick deal with Obama (to avoid the chances of a more hostile new administration and Congress) as it would to derail negotiations. Perhaps they thought Iran might actually demand a treaty version of the agreement?

But a dumb idea is not necessarily a 'traitorous' or 'evil' idea. And it certainly is not unprecedented or a violation of the Logan act (which, by the way, has nothing to do with treason).

By the way, 'the hardliners' are not our enemy, all of Iran is our enemy...which are those who currently run its government.

Mr Capone's associates were not being intimidating, and to suggest that they were doing something wrong is hyperbolic nonsense.

Their 'threats' laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that the plaintiff's shop contains a number of flammable items. b) That it would be a great shame if someone was to be careless with a match.

In other words, the message that some kind of insurance policy would be a wise choice.

Exactly what Mr Capone's associates thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their concern, is unclear. Their statement's effect would be as likely to prompt a call to a fire insurance company as it would to intimidate.

But a dumb idea is not necessarily an 'intimidating' or 'evil' idea.

Weak Bilby...so much so, let me AT LEAST make it more accurate.

The D.A. staff was not being intimidating, and to suggest that they were doing something wrong is hyperbolic nonsense.

They laid out two simple facts to the co-conspiritors that no one substantively disputes:

a) A deal with Mr. Capone has to be lawful and b) if is not, then when they retire Mr. Capone from political influence, they don't have to respect any agreement.

In other words, don't assume Mr. Capone speaks for the law.

 

[bilby]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

The letter went well beyond not supporting the president. It was essentially providing advice to the Iranians, trying to help them out by urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted.

As Obama pointed out, this is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why it is considered borderline treasonous by some; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.

What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. This 'terrible' letter laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that only Congress can approve a treaty that is durable beyond the remainder of Obama's term. b) After Obama leaves, many members of Congress will remain in place.

In other words, the message is that Congress needs to be a part of the process.

Exactly what the Senators thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their unhappiness, is unclear. The letter's effect (even without the controversy) would be as likely to prompt a quick deal with Obama (to avoid the chances of a more hostile new administration and Congress) as it would to derail negotiations. Perhaps they thought Iran might actually demand a treaty version of the agreement?

But a dumb idea is not necessarily a 'traitorous' or 'evil' idea. And it certainly is not unprecedented or a violation of the Logan act (which, by the way, has nothing to do with treason).

By the way, 'the hardliners' are not our enemy, all of Iran is our enemy...which are those who currently run its government.

Mr Capone's associates were not being intimidating, and to suggest that they were doing something wrong is hyperbolic nonsense.

Their 'threats' laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that the plaintiff's shop contains a number of flammable items. b) That it would be a great shame if someone was to be careless with a match.

In other words, the message that some kind of insurance policy would be a wise choice.

Exactly what Mr Capone's associates thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their concern, is unclear. Their statement's effect would be as likely to prompt a call to a fire insurance company as it would to intimidate.

But a dumb idea is not necessarily an 'intimidating' or 'evil' idea.

Weak Bilby...so much so, let me AT LEAST make it more accurate.

As you are clearly incapable of so doing, I could not allow you to do so, even if I wanted to. Sorry.

 

[ksen]

Hey Max.

What promises has Obama made that he can't keep?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Apparently you don't know how these kinds of international agreements work. There is no "agreement with Obama" being negotiated.

Sure you want to go there?

I'd rather go to reality instead of talking about rightist delusions about how the nuclear negotiations work and what role congress has in them before any agreement has been reached.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It violates the norms of international law and diplomacy and violates past precedent from thousands of past agreements entered into by the US in a similar manner - the Republicans are effectively threatening to violate such norms because they think they can get away with it under domestic law. Exactly like the Iranian hardliners have always suspected and now have had confirmed for them by this disgusting move.

If you mean that under international law an agreement is considered binding, you may be correct. And while the 'norms' of international law in the real world is that they are constantly being violated by many nations (including by Iran) I am unclear if you are 'disgusted' because they threaten to violate international law, or if it is because you believe it to be offensive to the President's constitutional role.

Before commenting further, perhaps you would clarify.

And here we see where right-wingers diverge at the fork, some of them as conservatives, the others as raging partisans.

 

[ksen]

No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason

 

[laughing dog]

What is mind-boggling about the letter is that it is literally delusional. The US is not negotiating unilaterally with Iran. Britain, France, China and Russia are also involved (along with some other country I cannot recall). It is delusional to think that Russia or China will allow the US to dictate the terms of the deal, let alone France. Without their co-operation, any deal is pointless because they can scuttle it.

 

[maxparrish]

What promises has Obama made that he can't keep?

You're repeating my question of arkirk, perhaps you should ask him. I asked him why might an honest letter would cause mistrust? "Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?"

If Obama has been selling the notion that this reputedly '10 year' is binding beyond his brief tenure, then telling the Iranians the truth might cause mistrust. Alternatively, if they knew that already...and were aware of much of the opposition to Obama's rumored 'deal', then the letter would not have caused mistrust.

Mistrust occurs when you are lied to, not informed of the truth.

Apparently you don't know how these kinds of international agreements work. There is no "agreement with Obama" being negotiated.

I'd rather go to reality instead of talking about rightist delusions about how the nuclear negotiations work and what role congress has in them before any agreement has been reached.

You mean you would rather Obama not present his agreement to Congress for their formal (or informal) approval? Yes, we get that. We also get that he wishes to make a deal without Congressional scrutiny until after it is executed. And we get that his supporters wish to 'wait' till it is already a done deal before discussing it.

Are those the "delusions" of the right that vex you?

 

[ksen]

Your repeating my question to arkirk, perhaps you should ask him. As I asked why might an honest letter cause mistrust? "Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?"

What promises is Obama making to the Iranians that he can't keep?

If Obama has been selling the notion that this reputedly '10 year' is binding beyond his brief tenure, then telling the Iranians the truth might cause mistrust. Alternatively, if they knew that already...and were aware of much of the opposition to Obama's rumored 'deal', then it would not have caused mistrust.
Mistrust occurs when you are lied to, not informed of the truth.

What lies?

I'd rather go to reality instead of talking about rightist delusions about how the nuclear negotiations work and what role congress has in them before any agreement has been reached.

You mean you would rather Obama not present his agreement to Congress for their formal (or informal) approval? Yes, we get that. We also get that he wishes to make a deal without Congressional scrutiny until after it is executed. And we get that his supporters wish to 'wait' till it is already a done deal before discussing it.

Are those the "delusions" of the right that vex you?

No, the "delusions" that vex me is the constant not knowing what the fuck they are talking about.

But you seem happy doing it too so that's good.

 

[semiopen]

No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason

I didn't actually study this link, but

Lt. Col. Joni Ernst broke the law by signing the seditious letter to Iran.

 

[ksen]

I've been doing some reading on the executive agreements and treaties. The US has entered into nearly 20,000 executive agrements. In one stupid letter Tom Cotton has tried to put them all and all future agreements in jeopardy by painting the US as a negotiating partner you can't count on.

Luckily the rest of the world realizes that it's Cotton and people like him that are the ones acting in bad faith so the damage should be limited.

It is kind of funny that the tea baggers go on and on about Obama weakening the United States on the world stage and then turn right around and pull a stunt that has the potential to actually weaken the United States internationally.

Tom Cotton and the other signatories are clearly unfit for office and don't know what they are doing other than oppose Obama.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren - if the Iranians violate any agreement that is agreed upon and take steps to try to obtain a nuke - we still have the option of bombing them and putting the sanctions back on. This agreement is an attempt to stop it without resorting to that. Why not give it a try? The agreement will obviously demand inspections from an international team. What games can they play that they can't already play right now without such additional inspections?

Their game here is delaying tactics and Obama is playing along.

They've already violated agreements.

 

[Axulus]

Loren - if the Iranians violate any agreement that is agreed upon and take steps to try to obtain a nuke - we still have the option of bombing them and putting the sanctions back on. This agreement is an attempt to stop it without resorting to that. Why not give it a try? The agreement will obviously demand inspections from an international team. What games can they play that they can't already play right now without such additional inspections?

Their game here is delaying tactics and Obama is playing along.

They've already violated agreements.

What are they delaying? Are you saying the time to start a war with them and drop the bombs on them was yesterday?

 

[SimpleDon]

@max, I can't imagine you were ok with Pelosi doing that or the "Dear Commandate" letter but maybe you were ok with them and so are ok with the Iran letter too. But I suspect you weren't ok with them and you are ok with the Republicans doing this as some sort of schoolyard get even scheme.

To the contrary, I'd prefer both partys respect the Constitution. None the less, you can't play keep playing by the rules of baseball when the opposition plays football. At some point you realize that you are a patsy if you think that the President and his agencies are going to respect the separation of powers, and they will continue to grow more egregious as long as there is no pushback.

Obama pledged that he is not going to let the Senate to play their constitutional role in consenting to a major international agreement, he has refused to faithfully execute immigration law, he did not comply with the law on the Bergdahl trade, dodged the AUMF in Libya, and essentially rewritten portions of ACA, forcing the Republicans to file suit. And when Congress did not pass legislation for climate change, he ordered the EPA to 'create' law (rules) to impose without Congressional approval (and over their opposition).

And all the while he has bullied "independent agencies" (FCC), demeaned SCOTUS in SOU speech, and constantly threatened he "has a phone and pen" that will, essentially, make law for Congress when it does not do as he pleases.

His constant threats, jabs, and expressed ill-will to Congress and others who oppose him has sown the immense desire for pushback - and now that Congress does so with a little letter all you hear is "traitors" and other such nonsense. Obama's provocations and lack of respect have reached a limit for some, and he has only himself to blame.

A small amount of over reaction, don't you believe? There is nothing that Obama is doing that wasn't done by many presidents in the past. The subject of this thread, the executive agreements that aren't quite treaties, these have been used all through the history of the country, they have been vetted by the Supreme Court, and they have been honored by subsequent presidents. I am sure that considering your exhaustive knowledge of constitutional law that you realize that formal treaties become binding law in the US. Often times presidents and Congress don't want the terms of a treaty to become law in the country. From Wikipedia, Treaty clause,

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause empowers the President to conclude treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Treaties require a supermajority because of their elevated legal standing in comparison to congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. As articulated in the Supremacy Clause, treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land".

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[2] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent....[3]

While the Republican letter writers are correct, the next president can cancel an executive agreement. In fact they are all but guaranteeing that a Republican president will cancel the not yet negotiated agreement. But as a practical matter the next president won't do it because it will make it impossible for him to reach such agreements because under international law they are binding treaties.

As for his ill will to his political opponents I think that if anything he has shown them more respect than any other president would have, it is one of his failures. The Republicans met before Obama was even sworn in and pledged to oppose anything that Obama proposed, even if it damaged the country.

This is unprecedented. The country was in the worse economic downturn since the depression caused by the policies of the Republicans and we were fighting two wars that the Republicans had started to compensate for their remarkable inattention to the problem of the threat posed by NGO led terrorism. A threat that the previous administration had properly identified as the largest that the country faced.

Their "immense desire for pushback” dates from the very beginning of Obama's administration. And it is personal, directed at Obama. This was largely because they believed their own propaganda about Obama, that he was a liberal/socialist, muslim, Huey Newton want-a-be that was going to rollback all of the work that the Republicans had done over the years to turn the federal government into a machine for enriching the already rich, who was going to balloon the budget deficit, who was going to take away all of our guns, who was going to build concentration camps for conservatives, etc.

The Republicans encouraged and financially supported the organization of the most reactionary forces in their own party, the Tea Party. It is a move that haunts them to today, making it almost impossible to do anything but to rollback fifty years of social progress.

 

[Axulus]

It violates the norms of international law and diplomacy and violates past precedent from thousands of past agreements entered into by the US in a similar manner - the Republicans are effectively threatening to violate such norms because they think they can get away with it under domestic law. Exactly like the Iranian hardliners have always suspected and now have had confirmed for them by this disgusting move.

If you mean that under international law an agreement is considered binding, you may be correct. And while the 'norms' of international law in the real world is that they are constantly being violated by many nations (including by Iran) I am unclear if you are 'disgusted' because they threaten to violate international law, or if it is because you believe it to be offensive to the President's constitutional role.

I'm disgusted that the Republicans are threatening to make the US a non-credible actor in international negotiations by violating international norms and precedents, norms of which have been established over thousands of past agreements entered into by the United States over the past two centuries. The Republicans say they they can compeltely dismantle the agreement when a new president is elected - something that is unheard of in US foreign relations. This severely damages the US' credibility to negotiate and therefore damages our future ability to obtain international cooperation and agreements.

I'm also disgusted that, by making such a threat, they are confirming what the Iranian hardliners suspect: the US can not be trusted and will violate its agreements, and therefore a country should not make an agreement with the US. This move pushes some that are on the fence into the hardliner camp, and for legitimate reasons stated right on the letter signed by the Republicans.

 

[SimpleDon]

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

So the big problem was it was an open letter instead of an editorial in the New York Times? One is dissent at its most noble, free speech and apple pie while the other is treason?

If they had addressed their open letter to "To Whom it May Concern" instead of "The Mullahs in Iran" would you still want to lock them up for treason?

I don't consider this letter to be treasonous.I am giving the Senators who signed it the benefits of doubt, it is just incredibly stupid,

As they now seem to realize. The are already starting to back track, Republican aids have floated the idea that it was a joke, the daily beast,

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a light-hearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the Congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

The idea of the letter originated with or was promoted by Bill Kristol. To fully explore Bill's record of ideas Google "Kristol ball." His record is pretty bad.

But to the point, the fact that the constitution guarantees free speech doesn't make one immune to the consequences of that free speech. You can say what you want, but if you commit treason with that speech you have still committed treason.

 

[SimpleDon]

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

And how would anyone know what Pelosi was saying about Bush's war policies? According to Higgins "Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors." Therefore we would only have her word "she did not contradict the W Administration" or say "you can't trust the US Government". But you can say that when it comes to "not stopping at the waters edge" she did "substantially the same thing.", except rather than writing an open letter she carried on with her own secret talks.

Arguable, secret talks by the house leader is worse violation of the Logan act (not better) than a letter. In fact, it sounds a lot worse...

Pelosi's actions from an Arab perspective (Amir Taheri):

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”

Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/296893

I fully believe that she was wrong to negotiate with the Syrians. It is one thing to oppose the war, there was a lot wrong with the war, why we started it, how it was conducted, the total lack of planning for the aftermath, etc., the stink of incompetence was in every phase of the war. But none of this justifies what she did.

But I am collecting rationalizations for this letter. dismal says that it is alright to violate a law if it is widely considered unconstitutional, is rarely enforced and/or fascist in nature. Can I put you down for "because everyone does it?" Or were you just pointing out to ksen that Democrats have done the same thing, but you just forgot to say that it wasn't a good idea for anyone to present themselves to negotiate for the US without standing from the administration? Or perhaps you believe Pelosi was within her rights to negotiate with the Syrians and that we just forget how the vast majority of Republican Senators supported her actions?

 

[Axulus]

And how would anyone know what Pelosi was saying about Bush's war policies? According to Higgins "Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors." Therefore we would only have her word "she did not contradict the W Administration" or say "you can't trust the US Government". But you can say that when it comes to "not stopping at the waters edge" she did "substantially the same thing.", except rather than writing an open letter she carried on with her own secret talks.

Arguable, secret talks by the house leader is worse violation of the Logan act (not better) than a letter. In fact, it sounds a lot worse...

Pelosi's actions from an Arab perspective (Amir Taheri):

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”

Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/296893

I fully believe that she was wrong to negotiate with the Syrians. It is one thing to oppose the war, there was a lot wrong with the war, why we started it, how it was conducted, the total lack of planning for the aftermath, etc., the stink of incompetence was in every phase of the war. But none of this justifies what she did.

But I am collecting rationalizations for this letter. dismal says that it is alright to violate a law if it is widely considered unconstitutional, is rarely enforced and/or fascist in nature. Can I put you down for "because everyone does it?" Or were you just pointing out to ksen that Democrats have done the same thing, but you just forgot to say that it wasn't a good idea for anyone to present themselves to negotiate for the US without standing from the administration? Or perhaps you believe Pelosi was within her rights to negotiate with the Syrians and that we just forget how the vast majority of Republican Senators supported her actions?

But what the Republicans are threatening is in a different category than these other examples that are being brought up. None of these other examples are politicians threatening the possibility of breaking/undoing a past international agreement or an international agreement under negotiation. The Republican senators aren't engaging in negotiations with a foreign country, they are saying that we might break any agreement that is negotiated, and breaking our agreement is perfectly legal under our laws.