HOLY SHIT!! How is this not treason? The GOP is trying to pass a bill to undermine Obama on Iran

[Cali_Democrat]

Republicans to push for Iran bill
By Burgess Everett
3/3/15 4:17 PM EST


Senate Republicans want to show Benjamin Netanyahu that their support of his big speech to Congress wasn’t just talk: They plan to try to pass legislation to make it harder for the U.S. to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing a proposal that would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the U.S. and other world powers reach with Iran to wind down its nuclear program in exchange for the loosening of some sanctions. The GOP leader’s decision to move forward on that legislation came just a few hours after Netanyahu warned Congress that President Barack Obama’s administration and other world powers were pursuing a “very bad deal” with Iran.

“We think the timing is important. We think it will help the administration from entering into a bad deal. But if they do, it will provide an opportunity for Congress to weigh in,” McConnell said Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-pushes-iran-bill-115717.html?hp=r4_4

[randys1]

1. These racists are making me wish for a REVOLUTION.. a real one

[peace13]

2. Can we call it treason yet?

Do they know wat the punishment for that is? Please, let them try this so that the proceedings can start. We truly are a nation of no laws!

[onenote]

15. You can call it whatever you want. Won't change the fact it's not actionable treason under the law.

[pangaia]

39. Nothing would happen anyway.

[Kablooie]

50. Republicans are allowed treason. It's in the Constitution.

or if it's not, everyone will act as if it is.

[mindwalker_i]

3. Damn, congress under republican control

... is like a public toilet with turrets syndrone.

[monmouth4]

4. What will the repubs do if NuttyYahoo loses his election?....n/t

[elias49]

27. That would be priceless! nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. OMG Congress proposing a law!!

Asking that this be a treaty rather than an agreement! Treasonous! Scandalous!

Not.

[Initech]

6. Holy shit! They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this!

[B Calm]

7. They'll go ballistic when Obama vetoes it, so that said it might be funny.

[Cha]

66. VETO! "Obama to veto bill letting Congress weigh in on Iran deal"

snip//

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.

"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.

The United States and five other major powers are seeking to negotiate an agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

MOre..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/us-iran-nuclear-usa-obama-idUSKBN0LX11320150301?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter



B Calm

[fadedrose]

110. ++++++

[JustAnotherGen]

76. True!

[longship]

8. Read your Constitution to find out why this is not treason.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the word "treason" being invoked under such circumstances. That sounds more like the inflamed invective that the GOP uses against President Obama (Kenyan, Muslim, anti-Christ, etc.) than a rational response to what can nevertheless be fairly described as a horrendous political faux pas by the GOP leadership, and Bibi himself.

But not treason, which again has a very specific definition in the USA.

I'd rather not give our political opponents an easy rhetoric argument against us. They don't deserve that opening.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Actively working with a foreign government (Israel) to undermine the US government

is treason.

[onenote]

16. No. But thanks for playing.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Yes it is. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. Who is the enemy that Congress is aiding and providing comfort to? n/t

[Rex]

37. Don't ya just love it when people beat you over the head with their superior knowledge.

Yet ask a simple, direct question about said knowledge and all you get is, "go look it up".

Lame, but expected.

[leftynyc]

95. How many times

does this have to be explained before we get to tell people to get off their asses and read the constitution to look it up? 10? 20? This has been going on since the speech by Bibi was announced. Proposing legislation is not treason.

[Rex]

111. It's not that IMO, what if they do read it and still don't get it?

Just because someone can read something, doesn't mean they can comprehend it. If you know something about the topic, why not just tell people why? Maybe they did go read it...and still don't understand the reason.

Although I joke at times about our DU Experts(tm)...in all seriousness we do have some real experts on issues like government and procedures that the rest of us learn from.

[leftynyc]

112. Honestly?

You expect me to believe that people who can post on here on the political and news issues of the day can't read the definition of treason and immediately see there has to be an enemy? It has also been explained over and over and over (several times on this thread alone) and still they insist on using the word treason. You think it's ignorance. I think it's intellectual laziness.

[Rex]

113. Could be a combo of both, I won't deny some of it is laziness.

That's why I was curious about Iran-Contra. How do we define enemy and are we talking about a classical war, a cold war or just a war of words between nations?

Is Iran our enemy? Were they at the time?

[leftynyc]

114. That's why I think that would

be an interesting debate. Iran Contra was so soon after the hostage crisis, I'm guessing a very large number of Americans would have answered with a resounding yes as to whether they were our enemy. But that's a great question. Who makes that distinction? I mean, obviously anyone we have declared war on (Japan and Germany in WWII) would be considered enemies. But today? Who would be considered enemies today? I shake my head at the knowledge that getting a consensus on that would be near impossible even for DU let alone the entire nation.

[Scootaloo]

57. We are not at war with Israel. Therefore Israel is not an enemy

Ergo, this move is not treason.

it's underhanded, duplicitous, and subversive, but it's not treason.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. No, it's not

Words have meaning, and this is not treason.

[longship]

23. Again, read your Constitution. It is specific.

I suppose I need to quote it for you.

It is in Article III:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

From my reading of this situation, Israel is not an enemy, nor have they ever been.

In no way is this treason by the definition. The question remains. Why would anybody want to invoke such an easily debunked claim? After all, it was put in the Constitution in the first place specifically so that a charge of treason could not be used as a political weapon as had been used throughout much of history and, regrettably, which some here are attempting to do.

Let's not fling that word around casually.

Sorry, my friend. I cannot go down that path with you.

[F4lconF16]

42. +1 very well stated. nt

[A Simple Game]

44. Israel isn't our enemy? Well this goes back a ways but with a name like longship

you should probably know about the USS Liberty. Israel isn't as pristine as some would think.
It's common knowledge that Mossad has been caught spying on us more than once.

It is a stretch but a case could be made that Israel is an enemy of the US.

[longship]

49. LOL, good one.

However, longship is a very specific reference to my Norwegian and Finnish heritage, not to gunboat diplomacy of the 20th century. However, I will freely admit to Scandinavian gunboat (AKA longship) diplomacy of previous centuries. What's important is not what was, but what is.

So I proudly wear my Norge/Suomi heritage these days.

BTW, I am a rather proud peaceful and secular person. I think the current Israel government act like a bunch of bullies. And I HATE bullies. Needless to say, that includes their bully-in-chief.

Words are cheap. I judge people by actions. The way it was orchestrated, the Bibi speech is an action I cannot support, no matter what his words were.

My best regards.

[csziggy]

74. The Israeli government has acted like bulles for far longer than the current one

The reference to the USS Liberty is one point in that history.

USS Liberty Veterans Association

USS Liberty
ON JUNE 8, 1967, while patrolling in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel. Of a crew of 294 officers and men (including three civilians), the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action. The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap.

At 1400 hours, while approximately about 17 nautical miles off the northern Sinai coast and about 25 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading. Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm.

During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders. After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. Twenty-five Americans, in addition to the nine who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.

More: http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/

The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years
By James M. Ennes Jr.

Twenty-six years have passed since that clear day on June 8, 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 young men and wounding 171. The attack in international waters followed over nine hours of close surveillance. Israeli pilots circled the ship at low level 13 times on eight different occasions before attacking. Radio operators in Spain, Lebanon, Germany and aboard the ship itself all heard the pilots reporting to their headquarters that this was an American ship. They attacked anyway. And when the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime.

There is no question that this attack on a U.S. Navy ship was deliberate. This was a coordinated effort involving air, sea, headquarters and commando forces attacking over a long period. It was not the "few rounds of misdirected fire" that Israel would have the world believe. Worse, the Israeli excuse is a gross and detailed fabrication that disagrees entirely with the eyewitness recollections of survivors. Key American leaders call the attack deliberate. More important, eyewitness participants from the Israeli side have told survivors that they knew they were attacking an American ship.

Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

More: http://www.wrmea.org/1993-june/the-assault-on-the-uss-liberty-still-covered-up-after-26-years.html

New revelations in attack on American spy ship
By John Crewdson Tribune senior correspondent

Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html#page=1

[Scootaloo]

58. "Enemy" has a specific meaning in US law - it means an entity we are in a state of war with

Israel is by no means a friend to our nation. But nor is it an enemy.

[A Simple Game]

87. The funny thing is that we have by some reports on at least two occasions

harmed two of our own ships to start wars against enemies, but when another country purposely attacks one of our ships we give them a pass and even appear to do a cover-up to aid the attacker.

The definition of enemy seems to vary and sometimes even appears contrived depending upon whether or not we want a war with that particular entity.

Nor is the enemy limited to just those that attack our ships, ask Saddam... wait, you can't ask Saddam can you.

So does the title enemy come before the state of war, or after? What about Vietnam? That wasn't technically a war, were they an enemy?

Anyone that says they support our troops and gives the attack by Israel on the Liberty a pass should be ashamed of themselves.

[Scootaloo]

89. We're looking at legal terms here, since "treason" is a specific crime

To commit the crime of treason, one must...

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

So then who is an enemy? In a legal sense, an enemy is defined as...

ENEMY, international law. By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. It also signifies a citizen or subject of such a nation, as when we say an alien enemy. In a still more extended sense, the word includes any of the subjects or citizens of a state in amity with the United States, who, have commenced, or have made preparations for commencing hostilities against the United States; and also the citizens or subjects of a state in amity with the United States, who are in the service of a state at war with them. Salk. 635; Bac. Ab. Treason, G.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enemy

That is, legally, "enemy" is a nation we are at war with, or a citizen of such a nation who is participating in hostilities.

As for whether Korea, Vietnam and, well, every war since "counts" due to the lack of a congressional declaration of war... I would guess that it DOES, since all the apparatus of war is enacted, usually with Congress tacitly agreeing to an executive conduct of war (as in Iraq, where the US congress told the executive branch "do whatever you want to do&quot

[840high]

45. +1 To add - I hope

Israel is never our enemy.

[leftynyc]

94. Uh - no

And I'm pretty sure it's been explained to you before. Actively working with an ENEMY is treason. Waging war against the US is treason. Proposing legislation? Not so much.

[Rex]

11. Was Iran-Contra treason?

What about the Iraqi War (the last one) based on known lies?

[longship]

28. The question is, is Bibi addressing Congress treason?

Quit trying to divert the discussion.

Treason has a definition under US law. It's in Article III of the Constitution. I suppose that I ought to quote it again, just in case people here don't get it.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I have no love for Boehner, but neither him nor any of the GOP have committed treason. Certainly not by inviting Bibi to address Congress.

And I despise Bibi!

[Rex]

31. How am I diverting discussion by asking you a direct question?

This is a sub-thread, you don't have to answer if you are unsure. Just wanted to know what you thought about those two events. So NO the question to YOU is do you think those two events amount to treason by the definition.

Again, if you are unsure just say so it won't matter.

[longship]

33. Iran-Contra is a diversion in the context of this thread.

If you want that to be the discussion, start your own thread.

Here, it is an unnecessary sideline. The question is, is Bibi's speech before Congress a result of treason?

Please stay on topic.

Much obliged.

[Rex]

35. So you won't answer a direct question yet accuse me of diversion, thanks that is all I needed

to know.

[longship]

38. This thread is not about Iran-Contra.

And I will not respond to your question here, or likely any place. It seems to be a nearly useless question without resolution, as mostly all the participants are now dead.

That case, whatever the verdict, is moot.

That is all I wish to say about it in this context (i.e., Bibi's speech).

[Rex]

41. See reply #37

[longship]

51. Oh dear. You went there?

I am sorry if I offended.

See response #36 (posted in wrong subthread).

[Rex]

52. Not at all, you just seem to know so much and give so little to an easy 5 second answer.

I guess you never notice these things. We all have our own personal idiosyncrasies.

[longship]

60. That is true, my friend.

Although I disagree with you on some concepts, I do so not as an adversary.

But I very much agree with this post of yours.

It is my fervent belief that therein lies a way forward.

As always, my respects to you.

[Rex]

61. Yeah sorry for the snark, my doctor said, 'Rex stop being such an asshole all the time.'

So I try to keep it down to short term intervals. I just feel (from reading your posts over the years) that you are one knowledgeable fellow in regards to these matters - and when you dangle such knowledge over the heads of others. Well, you know.

It is one primary way I learn, people know a lot about certain things here and when it gets dangled in front of me...I get um snarky. Call it angry catfish syndrome!

I respect your opinion more than a lot of others here.

[longship]

69. I am not that intelligent, my friend.

I guess that I have just lived a rather long time and have learned by mistakes and I can repeat them exactly. (Homage to Peter Cook for that one.)

I see no use in personal attacks just because of a disagreement. There is no gain in that. None whatsoever.

One can be clever, or one can be nice. I prefer nice.

I am rather good with quips by others. "There's always somebody more clever than yourself." That's one I take to heart.

Thank you very much for your compliment. It is much appreciated. I hope to live up to it.

[Scootaloo]

59. Iran-Contra could actually count, yes

Though we had not issued a formal declaration of war, we were engaging in military activities against iran's navy and providing assets to Iraq during the Iran-iraq war. Thus a conscious effort to aid Iran would have been pretty close to treason (I think we need a formal declaration of war still, though.)

Iraq was not treason; it was a crime against humanity (which is very much an impeachable offense, and one that actually carries the death sentence besides - and one of the few times I would support such a sentence)

[leftynyc]

96. Iran Contra would be an interesting

case to discuss. Who was conspiring with an enemy with the Iraq War?

[TheKentuckian]

108. I'd say both are heinously criminal but neither meet the definition of treason.

It is just such a limited and specific test that is clearly enumerated that there is nor should there be any flexibility of application or interpretation.

Then there is the fact that we are talking the legislative body operating openly to propose legislation that would have to pass legally so functioning within the defined parameters of their authority rather than rogue actors in the administration in no way acting under the law but rather blatantly violating all kinds of them and covering it up.

None are treason but this is even further away from any possibility of being legally such.

If Congress proposed a law restricting Reagan's ability to reduce sanctions or make treaties with South Africa in the 80's I'm pretty sure any charges of treason would be laughed at at first and then pushed back on as hard as possible if they persisted.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. The word treason is thrown around here so much that it's become meaningless n/t

[longship]

24. Agreed! nt

[mythology]

63. Sadly true

It's slang for things people don't like.

[The Green Manalishi]

75. Well said, EOM

[hack89]

9. Because it does not meet the Constitutional definition of treason perhaps?

Israel is not at war with the US as far as I can see.

[Kingofalldems]

12. I certainly consider Netenyahu an enemy.

[hack89]

13. That's nice. nt

[longship]

36. What you think is irrelevant in this context.

Or, what I think.

After all, the definition was put in the Constitution specifically so that the very serious charge of treason would not be a political tool, like it had been throughout much of history. One has to understand the historic underpinnings of why this was done, and why casually flinging around the word "treason" would make the founders cringe.

If you do not understand this I don't know what else to say to you.

I will not otherwise respond to your question.

Nevertheless, my respectful regards.


On edit: Oopsie! Responded to the wrong post. Forgive me. This belongs under the Iran-Contra question post.

[840high]

46. I don't.

[leftynyc]

98. I don't

And you know what? It doesn't matter what you or I think about Bibi because he is also irrelevant to this discussion. ISRAEL is not an enemy.

[sabrina 1]

14. Obama has stated that he will veto such a bill. And if it is the same one Bibi plotted to try to get

passed, the co-sponsor is a DEMOCRAT.

So, when did Bibi become the Leader of this country?

[BlueCaliDem]

107. Two Democrats, actually. Tim Kaine and Bob Menendez and they BOTH withdrew their support today. eom

[former9thward]

19. Was it treason when Democrats tried to pass anti-war legislation

against Johnson during the Vietnam War?

I wish people knew their Constitution better...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. God, so do I!! n/t

[leftynyc]

99. Me too

How many fucking times does it have to be explained what treason is? It's not a difficult concept.

[leftynyc]

99. Edited to delete duplicate

Edited to delete duplicate

[Compass33]

20. Not sure about the details on this

What sort of deal are we supposed to be cutting with Iran? Why is this a good thing?

[treestar]

25. Theres no way it is treason, and Obama can veto anything they do.

They have nothing better to do than pass quixotic bills (from their viewpoint).

[Orsino]

26. They are afraid of credit going to the president for a substantive peace deal.

Their eagerness to pass such a bill seems to indicate the degree of that fear.

[840high]

47. Peace with Iran?

[leftynyc]

102. This isn't a peace deal

This is a keep nukes out of the hands of fanatical mullahs deal.

[Orsino]

104. For the sake of peace, yes. n/t

[herding cats]

29. Ah, this is our new political theater from the GOP.

After the abrupt shutdown of the DHS Funding Bill, I wondered how long before they brought something new. Never one to disappoint their fans for long, they're promising this one will double the drama and double the fun! They promise this performance will have something sure to excite all their President Obama and Democratic party hater's out there, for their religious followers they're tossing in a potential Armageddon in the third act. There's even a rumor Donald Rumsfeld is going to make a guest appearance to perform the Kid Rock song Warrior on the house floor during the vote!

[BumRushDaShow]

53. ^^THIS^^

They had a triple loss today that they had to sweep under the theatrics - A clean DHS funding bill was passed and will be signed into law, the Immigration EOs/Signing statements are still in place (although some of them on hold pending a court review that will probably leave them intact), and the coming (guilty) plea-deal by Petraeus.

[Bucky]

30. It is not treason for the legislative branch to obstruct policies it opposes.

They're terribly wrong on this issue, but the president alone doesn't constitute the US government and doesn't alone determine US policy. You sound like the conservatives who called it treason when a Democratic Congress tried to cut off funding for the war in Vietnam. That's not how treason works.

Let's be clear about this: it was not treason when Congress passed the Boland Amendment denying the Reagan administration the ability to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. It was treason when Oliver North broke that law and embezzled money to hand over to the Contras to carry on their terrorist campaigns. See the difference? Congress can't commit treason, even when they do things we don't like.

We should be pissed off at them. But we still have to be logical about critiquing them. That's the price of being the party of the grown ups.

[RufusTFirefly]

34. Voice of reason. Thank you! n/t

[Vattel]

48. What Oliver North did was not treason because the Contras weren't our enemy.

We should have made them our enemy instead of supporting them, but you can't commit treason by helping an ally.

[Bucky]

92. If so, then he's only an embezzler. He still should've gone to prison.

[leftynyc]

103. I think it was the selling of

arms to Iran that many would consider treason. I think that would be a fascinating debate.

[ColesCountyDem]

40. Because treason has a specific legal definition, and this isn't it. n/t

[Wella]

43. Treason is not something you do against a President, but against the nation.

That being said, it is disturbing that Netanyahu is more important to Congress than Obama. One wonders what interests are at work.

[Fred Sanders]

56. Well said...the attempt to personalize this as a personal conflict is itself treasonous.

[cstanleytech]

54. They arent guilty of treason anymore than Snowden is and the Senate already had the power to

reject a treaty all they need is a 2/3 majority vote so I am not sure what Mitch is trying here unless he wants the power to reject a treaty with less than that 2/3 majority in which case it will probably end up with Mitch and the Republicans getting their butts spanked in court.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. President Obama is saying that this isn't a treaty, it's an agreement

As such, it wouldn't require a Senate vote.

Personally, I'm in favor of it being treated as a treaty, including Senate approval, but I would prefer that President Obama treat it as such voluntarily, rather than possibly being forced by Congress to do so.

[cstanleytech]

65. If its an agreement then the Senate is over reaching on its constitutional powers.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. Not if a law is passed to make it a treaty n/t

[cstanleytech]

68. Only the president can propose I thought with the Senate being constitutionally limited to only

advising on it and then to agreeing or rejecting it?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Any agreement is most likely goiing to require that sanctions be lifted

which will require Congressional action. Should they choose to say "No treaty, no sanctions lifted", it could be difficult.

[karynnj]

82. Many of the sanctions can be waived by the President - a provision of the law

that set them up.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. That's a shame n/t

[karynnj]

88. Really

So, you are against Obama getting a diplomatic deal. The way that sanctions are handled is determined by the law written to put them in place to begin with. The heaviest sanctions were requested by the Obama administration in his first term -- and the stated goal was to bring Iran to making the choices it now may well be made. It is likely well within the intent - as well as the language - of that earlier bill to allow Obama to right to waive them.

The reason it is not a treaty is that a treaty - whether START or TPP - commits the US to certain things. The Iran negotiation does not commit the US to anything - other than the promise to end some sanctions - and Obama/Kerry will limit the commitment to ones Obama has the power to waive. Note that the agreement does not even prevent the US from reinstating sanctions - if Iran breaks the agreement or any other reason.

As you seem, like Netanyahu, to be against any likely agreement, what do you think the US policy should be here? Do you - like Netanyahu - offer no real solution? His call for greater sanctions is ludicrous as there would be no international support for that - especially if the other 5 countries find the agreement acceptable.

The real choice is likely to be:

The agreement if there is one - which constrains Iran (even more than the interim agreement) and provides monitoring for the term of the agreement (which seems to be a decade)

OR

The US holding on to sanctions and even increasing them and possibly the rest of the world abandoning them - blaming the US (and Israel) for the failure to get an agreement. This would leave Iran with no monitoring and the incentive to scramble to get nuclear weapons as fast as they can.

Needless to say, if all of the 2nd possibility happens, we could well be pushed into a war with a country far larger and stronger than Iraq was --- happening as we are fighting the Sunni extremists who were the product of our last war of choice. (Consider that at that point, the US might be fighting Iran, its allies (Iraq and Syria), AND ISIS -- all at the same time.

If Netanyahu wants to speak of Biblical events that might have occurred or not - maybe he should try Agamemnon instead of the story of Esther.

[onenote]

90. If Congress passed a law to set up sanctions, it can pass a law to change that law.

Not that they should. But they obviously can.

[karynnj]

91. Of course they can and that is what the cosponsors want to do

However, they need to pass that as a law - meaning they need to get it past both Houses, and then over ride the veto (that will come).

That is different than what some here are speaking for -- which is that this should be treated as a treaty meaning that Obama needs to get 67 Senate votes.

These two things are incredibly different -- a difference of needing 34 Senate votes - vs 67 Senate votes.

[karynnj]

81. It doesn't meet the definition of a treaty and it would be crazy for Obama to

treat it as such. He would need to get 67 votes IN FAVOR of the agreement in the Senate if it were a treaty.

(Some one above has this backwards that McConnell would need 67 votes to reject it -- in fact he would need just 34. )

[SickOfTheOnePct]

83. What do you consider the definition of a treaty? n/t

[C Moon]

55. These guys are sick.

They don't even want to wait for the next election to see if they can pull off WWIII. They want it now.

[Cha]

62. VETO! "Obama to veto bill letting Congress weigh in on Iran deal"

snip//

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.

"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.

The United States and five other major powers are seeking to negotiate an agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

MOre..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/us-iran-nuclear-usa-obama-idUSKBN0LX11320150301?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter



Mahalo, Cali!

[kelly1mm]

70. The problem as I see it is an agreement made by the President without consent

of congress has no binding effect on the US. It is certainly not a treaty, not even a law. And if it is an executive action, it is only binding as long as the executive action is in place. Any future Executive has the ability to disregard it. I am not so sure this is the way we want to go on this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. My thoughts exactly

If it's a good agreement, a good deal, then bring it before the Senate and have them ratify it.

[Jester Messiah]

71. Gee, I wonder if Obama will sign it.

Dumbasses. What kind of idiot do you have to be to vote for these fools?

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

79. You asked the right question.

The truth of the matter is the republican party is at odds with itself. What they want is an issue,any issue to get out in front of and keep the ball rolling for as long and as far as it can go. They miss the old republican lock step days and they want to regain some of that. That meaning the majority or a prominent number of them al on the same page in lock step or cahoots. That as it so happens is the ball they want to get off and rolling and at all cost.If they can get one going good and fast than they figure add on or tag on issues will fallow the ball in play. All the way into 2016 and beyond. The gop wants restoration of the GOP. Since thats what they want ,they must have a plan.

So the question is what's cooking inside those powers .What is it really all about ?
Or how far will that ball roll befor it runs afoul ?

On the part of the second, what would that cost them ?

[Liberal Lantern]

77. It isn't treason, because it is called "sedition."

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

80. And of course, none of that occurred n/t

[leftynyc]

105. Consider deleting this

because none of what's in that definition has occurred and it's maddening enough to have to explain over and over again what the definition of treason is.

[Turbineguy]

78. We used to get people on the ships like that.

they were called "Dangerous Idiots". They did not understand the forces they controlled and therefore had no clue as to the consequences of their incompetence..

[840high]

85. Not treason.

[hugo_from_TN]

86. Good Lord. We don't have a king.

[AZ Progressive]

93. And the Obama disciples give a bad image to Democrats, giving an excuse to Republicans

for being authoritarian assholes, because it gives the idea that Democrats would do the same if given the same power / resources.

[Oktober]

97. Legal standards....

[fadedrose]

101. I'll worry when they pass a bill to change the Constitution

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

about birthplace, etc. to allow BiBi to run for President of the United States.

This is becoming a pro facto country ruled by him and his party .

[leftynyc]

106. Except you can't

just have congress pass a bill to amend the constitution. There's quite a bit more to it than that.

[mwrguy]

109. Israel is technically not our enemy

Sine we maintain the legal fiction that they are our friends, this cannot be treason.

[blackspade]

115. It's a wingnut jamboree....

For the rest of the world...