Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations

[phill4paul]

Can you point out in the letter where it "basically threatens"? I admit to only having quickly read it yesterday and it appeared factual and informative. Why should Iran not be fully briefed on how our govt works and what Obama could actually achieve in negotiations? I contend that Iran should be appreciative of the letter.

When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes? Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations. It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.

 

[EBounding]

I'm not thrilled about it even though there's nothing factually incorrect in the letter and doesn't diverge from Rand's position on Iran. The words aren't threatening, but it's obviously a threat considering the source--like a mafia guy offering to sell you insurance. It's just not very "statesman-like".

It's just another thing Rand has to do. I think the problem though is that the presidency is a reflection of the electorate--not the other way around. Until the culture changes, or gov't at the state and local level, it's not going to matter who is president.

I'm still supporting him for president when he declares though. Soon we'll know once and for all whether this "top-down" strategy works or not.

 

[specsaregood]

And specsaregood, the very idea that they sent this implies that they will work to overturn any treaty that Obama works out with them, which is threatening.

It is not threatening, its informative telling them not to waste their time with a lame duck like Obama.

When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes?

I would hope so; but having the processes and the legislative branches intentions spelled out certainly wouldn't hurt Iran in the negotiations. It hurts Obama.

Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations.

Meh, I don't see it that way. I see it as a threat undermining Obama, not Iran or the negotiations (since it basically says the negotiations are a waste of time).

It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.

No, I don't believe it was innocuous either. I just think we disagree as to which party of the "negotiations" should be offended.

 

[mit26chell]

Was pretty shocked to see Rand's name attached with all of these other republican idiots on this letter. I think this is unprecedented stupidity.

 

[phill4paul]

It is not threatening, its informative telling them not to waste their time with a lame duck like Obama.


I would hope so; but having the processes and the legislative branches intentions spelled out certainly wouldn't hurt Iran in the negotiations. It hurts Obama.



Meh, I don't see it that way. I see it as a threat undermining Obama, not Iran or the negotiations (since it basically says the negotiations are a waste of time).


No, I don't believe it was innocuous either. I just think we disagree as to which party of the "negotiations" should be offended.

And negotiations are bad..how? It matters not who is doing it. It is within the executives purview to hold negotiations without being undermined. If you want to know what Tom Cotton's goal was, he lays it out here...

“The point we’re making to Iran’s leaders — who, if you talk to many of the Iran experts, will say don’t understand our Constitution — is that if Congress doesn’t approve a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal. Now or in the future,” Cotton said.

When asked what an acceptable deal would look like to him, Cotton answered “complete nuclear disarmament by Iran.”

“They can simply disarm their nuclear weapons program and allow complete intrusive inspections,” Cotton said.

MSNBC’s hosts pressed Cotton on the idea of complete disarmament, arguing that Iran would never agree to those terms.

“I think we have to have a credible threat of military force on the table but the real alternative … to a bad deal is a better deal,” Cotton said. “With more sanctions, with confronting Iran, with only giving them the choice that would completely disarm their nuclear weapons.”

Cotton said that a “credible threat of force on the table… would only enhance the ability” of the U.S. to disarm Iran.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...iran-letter-defense-115925.html#ixzz3Tzn0yt1L

So, America as the world's policeman with everything on the table including a military threat. Because...that has worked so well in the past.

 

[mit26chell]

When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes? Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations. It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.

This. And all it does is make it look like all of the repubes in the Senate think they're better than the Iranians, when they're not. The letter is very condescending and such a stupid move. What right do these idiots have to talk down to leaders of a foreign country (one who has not threatened us)? What is the point? All 47 look like a bunch of assclowns.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, I did read it. It basically threatens Iran that any deal that they make with Obama is likely to be voided by a future president or congress. It is very unordinary for the Senate to send such letters. The fact that it was written by Tom Cotton, a raging neocon who is itching to go to war with Iran, makes me wonder why Rand Paul would sign it. Not every Republican senator signed it.

Not every republican senator is running for POTUS and courting teocons to do it.

 

[specsaregood]

And negotiations are bad..how? It matters not who is doing it. It is within the executives purview to hold negotiations without being undermined.

I don't believe I said negotiations are bad. I think Iran should take the letter and say, "fine, screw you". Then make it known to the rest of the world that they are ready to start negotiating treaties with everybody except the US.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

it was childish. while the senate is technically correct, it's intent is to interfere with the negotiations, and cause a war. I still don't see the need for USA permission for Iran to have nukes. Israel and Pakistan did not.

I see something strange with this letter. nothing like was ever done before. Almost as if it was meant to embarrass Rand. all the others had no political or moral risk.

No doubt trapping Rand was one of the motivations for some people. Kind of a bonus. Primarily this is just Tom Cotton proving that he's going to be the most aggressive neo-conservative ever in the Senate.

 

[jmdrake]

Was pretty shocked to see Rand's name attached with all of these other republican idiots on this letter. I think this is unprecedented stupidity.

I'm not. Absolutely nothing surprises me that Rand does. Those actually paying attention caught onto what Rand was doing back when he was first running for U.S. Senate back in 2007. When I did, I threw up a little in my mouth, choked it down, and moved on. At least half of Rand's supporters are hardcore teocons and he stands the chance of loosing them by showing too much common sense on foreign policy. He's pushing the edges of domestic policy (medical marijuana bill for instance) to let his original supporters know he's still with us and to gear up for the general election. (If Rand is the GOP nominee he will destroy Hillary when talking about the war on drugs).

 

[Suzanimal]

Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.

Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders

We’ve repeatedly pointed out that America is being decimated by the break down in the separation of powers between different branches of government.

The latest example is Congressional violation of the Logan Act. Specifically, the Logan Act – enacted in 1799 – states:

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.

The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

[T]he 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.

Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

I happen to think that Obama is a tyrant who – like Bush – should be impeached for trampling the Constitution. But two wrongs don’t make a right …

In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.

Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement.
On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

At a time when the United States government is attempting to reach a potential nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, 47 Senators saw fit to instead issue a condescending letter to the Iranian government stating that any agreement brokered by our President would not be upheld once the president leaves office.

This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason.

Published Date: Mar 09, 2015

SIGNATURES NEEDED BY APRIL 08, 2015 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000: 92,674

TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION: 7,326

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

 

[Brian4Liberty]

One of the goals of letters and votes like this is to "get people on record". It could be used against any Senator that did not sign. The "informational" tone of the letter would be spun as "why would anyone oppose some friendly education?"

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Rand can't look 'soft on Iran' to the zombie idiot GOP primary voters. That's why he signed the letter.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Thoughts on this?

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.

My thoughts are that I am anxiously awaiting the arrest of the bunch that invited Netanyahu. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Snowball]

The letter is insulting to the people and leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I read it, and it has an arrogant tone that is unbefitting.
I do not support Rand "Paul" and will never vote for him.
He has sold out to the Zionist Lobby.
Congrats to the other 7 Republican Senators who refused to sign, they have more
courage than Rand ever will. Rand "Paul" is morphing into Mike Huckabee.
That is all I have to say. Oh, one more thing.
Congrats to Obama for standing up to the Zionist thugs.

 

[specsaregood]

II do not support Rand "Paul" and will never vote for him.

I don't understand the use of the quotes in "Paul". Do you mean to imply that is not his given last name?

 

[AuH20]

Thank you, Daily News. This will make the isolationist stuff roll off his back.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

One of the goals of letters and votes like this is to "get people on record". It could be used against any Senator that did not sign. The "informational" tone of the letter would be spun as "why would anyone oppose some friendly education?"

This, besides, the letter has more to do with executive overreach than the Iranians. The Iranians aren't stupid either and wouldn't have expected anything else I'd say.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.




There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.

I'd say it's baseless. This letter is not part of any negotiations, it may be in relation to negotiations but it is a letter stating something. Also there were no negotiations when Netanyahu held his speech in front of congress, it was just a speech.

On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

 

[Brett85]

He's pushing the edges of domestic policy (medical marijuana bill for instance) to let his original supporters know he's still with us and to gear up for the general election. (If Rand is the GOP nominee he will destroy Hillary when talking about the war on drugs).

Except that Republican voters are actually coming closer to our positions on some of the domestic issues. The polls show that close to 50% of Republicans are now in favor of both full legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. (I understand that "gay marriage" isn't the libertarian position, but people think it is, and Rand taking the position of getting the government out of marriage won't hurt him nearly as much as it would've several years ago) The Republican Party is actually becoming more socially libertarian, but foreign policy wise they're getting more hawkish again.