The Republicans' letter to Iran

[ZiprHead]

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.

Cotton was used, or pwnd as the kids say.

 

[ksen]

C'mon, the republicans weren't threatening anything. They were just commenting to the iranians about how they had a nice looking agreement there and how it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

 

[ksen]

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.

Cotton was used, or pwnd as the kids say.

by whom?

 

[ZiprHead]

By the senior republicans who signed the letter. Now he gets to take most of the blame while the rest cower and make excuses, Like John McCain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Cotton was used, or pwnd as the kids say.

by whom?

That is actually a good question. It is inconceivable that the Republicans would do this. That they'd let someone who hasn't been in the Senate seat for even 6 months head it is flabbergasting. That they had Cotton do it wasn't a mistake. But who exactly is "they" is uncertain, and I don't know if I want to know. Right now, I'd be happy just to think this was an incredibly stupid Republican stunt, but likely they were directed by a donor or two to do this. A frightening likelihood.

 

[RavenSky]

No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason

Good article. He didn't directly address my earlier question about insurrection but my own research indicates that typical involves incitement to violence, which this letter did not include.

So Logan Act it is... Ksen for the win

 

[ksen]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason

Good article. He didn't directly address my earlier question about insurrection but my own research indicates that typical involves incitement to violence, which this letter did not include.

So Logan Act it is... Ksen for the win

Honestly, if what Obama has done up to now is treasonous (we've seen it mentioned here!), what the Republicans did is nothing short of even worse crimes.

 

[ksen]

Haha, silly Jimmy, it is literally impossible for republicans to ever be guilty of governing while black.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Well said, and I agree

 

[SimpleDon]

We are talking about opposition leaders negotiating with terrorists to keep American hostages locked up for longer so that they can be traded for arms, a reversal of our previous stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists. And you believe that this is acceptable because it somehow fits into the narrow right-left, conservative-liberal balance that you use to judge the actions of people. Because it is an action by a right-conservative it is alright to violate the law?

Or is this truly a principled stand, that it is okay for people to violate laws that are not enforced? In which case I am sure that you were at the front of the line arguing that Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying in a deposition?

I thought we were talking about roughly half of our sitting senators expressing their opinion in an open letter.

And this law is not enforced because is blatantly unconstitutional and creepily fascist.

We don't lock up opposition leaders for speech that disagrees with the Dear Leader in this country. As much as Progressives wish they could.

Have we dropped the "rarely enforced" rationalization that allows us to violate a law then? Is ”creepily fascist" replacing "rarely enforced" or is it a new exception?


I apologize, this "dismal'est" type of questioning is not my style. And I don't really care about knowing the finer points of your rationalizations.

Yes, they are violating the law, which was last enforced in 1803, I think. It is a bad idea for our legislators to violate the law even if the law is "creepily fascist," et al.

No, I don't want to put the 47 Senators put in jail*. They are not traitors, in my opinion, they are guilty of exercising bad judgement. I want them voted out of office, I want us to go back to the way that every healthy society deals with conservatives and reactionaries, that is by ignoring them.

* I can't pretend to speak for progressives, I have to defer to your superior ability to speak for them, even while I suspect that this ability exists only in your mind.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Haha, silly Jimmy, it is literally impossible for republicans to ever be guilty of governing while black.

You really need to keep in mind that plenty (I would presume the vast majority) of Congressional Republican hatred against Obama is merely partisan based and not race based. I think people get a bit carried away with the race angle. There are an uncomfortably large number of people in the US that don't like Obama or blacks, but that isn't the issue in Congress, in my opinion.

 

[dismal]

I thought we were talking about roughly half of our sitting senators expressing their opinion in an open letter.

And this law is not enforced because is blatantly unconstitutional and creepily fascist.

We don't lock up opposition leaders for speech that disagrees with the Dear Leader in this country. As much as Progressives wish they could.

Have we dropped the "rarely enforced" rationalization that allows us to violate a law then? Is ”creepily fascist" replacing "rarely enforced" or is it a new exception?


I apologize, this "dismal'est" type of questioning is not my style. And I don't really care about knowing the finer points of your rationalizations.

Yes, they are violating the law, which was last enforced in 1803, I think. It is a bad idea for our legislators to violate the law even if the law is "creepily fascist," et al.

No, I don't want to put the 47 Senators put in jail*. They are not traitors, in my opinion, they are guilty of exercising bad judgement. I want them voted out of office, I want us to go back to the way that every healthy society deals with conservatives and reactionaries, that is by ignoring them.

* I can't pretend to speak for progressives, I have to defer to your superior ability to speak for them, even while I suspect that this ability exists only in your mind.

First, as I point out the law is blatantly unconstitutional. We do not arrest people for speaking. Do you disagree?

Second, I'm going to give you a new word to look up: desuetude. Enjoy.

Third, I am not speaking for progressives. I am observing them speak, and accurately reporting the results.

 

[ksen]

Guys, it's ok. John "Torture Memos" Yoo says the Republican letter was just fine.

 

[SimpleDon]

1. The policy favored by Republicans is also the policy favored by Iranian hardliners. If this surprises you, then you haven't been paying attention.
2. Can you imagine the mainstream media uproar if Democrats did this to a Republican president?

I worked often in Iran. I have a lot of Iranian friends. The son of one lived in my home for a year to finish an American high school to make it easier to get into an American college. He went to California State at Long Beach. After college I hired him to work on my construction sites so that he could get a green card and eventually his citizenship. My son lived in his family's London home while he went to the University College of London.

I have never had a problem in Iran. I have never been in a country where the people are so welcoming to Americans while the government is so opposed. They pleaded constantly with me to understand that the Iranian people are not the inmans. They elected the reformist Khatami who promised to reconcile with the US including the nuclear issue more than ten years ago and Bush ignored them by treating them the same as the radicals. Bush needed a radical Iran as a member of the imaginary axis of evil.

As a result we ended up with the Conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the supreme leader refused to let any reformist candidates in the election. Had the Bush administration really paid attention to the reformist Khatami and negotiated with him would it have made a difference? My friends in Iran say that it would have, that the Bush administration undercut the reformists on purpose because they needed an enemy, not a friend.

 

[maxparrish]

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Be thankful that you did not, it does not even pass the laugh test. It's just an old lefty rhetorical ploy ("you're insulting our President"...your speaking sedation, yada yada); its the reemergence of a variation of the histrionic "how dare you question our patriotism" ritual. Give them a week, they will be disinterring Murtha and wheeling the corpse around, protesting 'the war heroes demeaning' treatment by Bush.

Maybe its time they organize a second funeral pep rally for Wellstone?

 

[maxparrish]

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.

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 completely 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.

Again, I am unaware that US habits of usually letting agreements stand ties the nation to inviolable 'norms and precedents', especially when we have often failed to meet the terms of such agreements, and give fair notice that the nation reserves the right to change its mind. More importantly, one or both of you seem to be trapped in a rhetorical characterization of the law and the players that has mangled your understanding of the issue, and badly crippled a reasoned perspective - so much so that while fuming against the Senators possibly giving comfort to hardliners out of power, you are blinded to other perspective, that Obama may actually be giving aid and comfort to the hardliners in power.

SimpleDon's statement, and Ksen's rhetoric about 'precedent' and 'norm' is similar to the view of the Iranian hardliner enemy in power; that if the next administration revokes any agreement it will be binding and ignoring it would be a violation of international law. But as international law legal experts, Goldsmith and Lederman, recently wrote it pre-judges whether any Executive agreement will, in fact, be binding under I.Law. http://justsecurity.org/20963/case-...ikely-nonbinding-agreement-international-law/

Both they, and Kerry says it will not be binding. Kerry recently testified to that effect, and it was confirmed by Jen Psaki - the deal with Iran wouldn’t be legally binding. It will be a “political commitment,” and she described the prospective deal as “a nonbinding international arrangement, to be signed (if it is signed) by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran,” in which Iran will make “verifiable and enforceable commitments to adhere to . . . limits.” In short, it is a non-binding political commitment between Obama and Khamenei.

And as a political commitment a deal with Iran is no more binding than the Paris Peace Accords was binding on the Democratic Senators and House of 1975. When Congress cut all aid to the South Vietnamese government to encourage their collapse, it reminded Ford that the executive agreement reached by Nixon to protect South Vietnam was not binding on them. The same for the unconsented Kyoto Protocols (whose goals the US did not meet) or the recent agreement with China to cut emissions by a certain amount.

So Congress was spot on, and unlike what the Democrats did to South Vietnam, the open letter is very upfront in preventing any misunderstandings (which apparently they have).

You two have faith that this is going to be a great deal and look upon any opposition as 'disgusting' - I don't. I consider the prospect of a weak and misleading deal far more disgusting.

That is our disagreement.

 

[untermensche]

Since when has the US ever submitted to an agreement it made with another nation?

Not one of them are worth the paper they are written on.

What is the big fear about this one?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

 

[Axulus]

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

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

And what would stop them from getting the bomb if we were not engaged in such efforts?