Treason! Violation of the Logan Act! General Being a Dick-ery!

[Roy Rolling]

How can people collectively demand legal proceedings against the 47 Senators who went behind the president's back to offer Iran a different deal than the deal on the table?

I'm telling anybody younger than I, that this is the most egregious act of arrogance and hubris since the Watergate break in.

How can those who enforce such treason laws be prodded into action? I was thinking on calling the FBI to tell them that two people from my state sent a letter to Iran without the approval of the U.S. government. People go to jail for that, in fact, my neighbor did 2 years for some oilfield parts he sold that ended up in Iran.

So will there be outrage or it will cool down and everyone will just go about their business of being screwed by the oligarchy?

[leftynyc]

1. For the hundredth time today

IT'S NOT TREASON. What enemy are they conspiring with? What enemy are they aiding and abetting?

[TheBlackAdder]

4. I remember the backroom deals when Carter was still president. Just to make Reagan the savior.

.

They undermined Carter's administration and dealt with the Iranians, trading missiles.

[leftynyc]

11. Reagan conspiring with Iran - now THAT

would have been a good debate about treason. This doesn't even come close.

[pnwmom]

5. What enemy? The hardliners of Iran who want no nuclear weapons treaty. n/t

[leftynyc]

12. And how is this letter

either conspiring WITH them or giving them aid and comfort?

[pnwmom]

14. They were trying to sabotage the governmental talks with this letter,

which is a goal shared by the hardliners (not the negotiators) in Iran.

[leftynyc]

17. That's not treason

That would be like white power assholes in the US having the same policy goals as the white power assholes in Europe.

[Roy Rolling]

8. Backchannel

It is hinted that they are opening a backchannel with Iranian hardliners who also have an interest in sabotaging an agreement I am told.

[leftynyc]

15. If THAT could be PROVEN

then an argument for treason could be interesting to argue.

[ananda]

18. What DO you call an attempt by members of Congress ...

... to take over the work of the executive branch and the
State department?

The problem with Constitutional law is not the breaking of
it, it's the enforcing of it.

Legislators are undermining the Constitution again and again,
particularly with regard to Roe v. Wade; but it takes an
enforcement body to stop this abrogation.

[leftynyc]

21. I call it juvenile

I call it unpatriotic. I call them assholes who I would cut my hand off before I'd vote for them. But they are not traitors.

[GliderGuider]

9. Sedition, maybe?

Yes, sedition.

[leftynyc]

13. I'm on the fence

about sedition. I lean against but I would love to hear two constitutional scholars argue that.

[MFM008]

20. so its ok then?

??

[leftynyc]

22. No - not okay

I've never seen disrespect for a President like this in all my 54 years. That's a pretty big leap you made - that because I understand what treason is and know this isn't it that I must be okay with this.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. Pardon my French, but: THIS BULLSHIT HAS TO STOP!

[Scootaloo]

3. First off, it's not treason. Treason has a legal definition that depends on war.

It's not even sedition, since they are not advocating the overthrow of the Us government.

It seems like it WOULD be a criminal act - or at least one thqat could result in penalties of some sort - but i have no idea what it would be

[pnwmom]

7. No, it doesn't depend on a war. It depends on having an enemy.

In addition to applying to acts of war, treason can consist of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. And the hardliners in Iran can be safely said to be our enemy.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/treason/

Despite this, there will be no civil or legal penalty for these people. I hope this is remembered at the ballot box, however.

[Scootaloo]

19. No. "Enemy" also has a legal definition.

It means a nation we are at war with, and individual citizens thereof participating in hostilities.

We are not at war with Iran. Ergo, Iran is not our enemy.

[Roy Rolling]

10. It's Hyperbole

Maybe not treason, and General Being Dick-ery is not an applicable offense, either.

If the senators are opening a backchannel with Iranian hardliners to scuttle the deal then it could be treason, maybe. Just guessing.

[4139]

6. Guilty of Jackassary, but not the Logan act...

...they did not advocate one position or another on the negotiations. The whole thing is not funny.

[jollyreaper2112]

16. ugh

Here's the thing: it's like scandal fatigue. Watergate was bad and worthy of being punished. But there's easily a half-dozen things Bush did worse than Watergate but, because of the sheer volume of blackhearted fuckery, no individual outrage could gain traction in the news cycle.

While this is a HUGE fuckup and outrage by historic standards, by the recent run of things I doubt it will receive any particular attention.

I'm kind of gobsmacked by it myself. Even in earlier times when the parties were ready to go to the mat, they still abided by the idea that politics ends at the border. You never present a divided front to the world. At this point, you've got the feeling if Obama was assassinated, they couldn't even manage a display of crocodile tears, they'd be rioting in the streets like their team just won the Super Bowl. They'd make the gunman the face of the party.

[JonLP24]

23. The same thing was said when Pelosi when she left the country to meet Assad in 2009

I'd rather not. Why can't I sent a letter to Iran without US approval? I'd like to write some nasty letters to some human rights violators but I won't seriously but if I wanted to, I don't know see why I'd need government approval.