Obama broke federal law with Iran payment
- Thread starter New Pal Boiler
- Start date
So, break a US law to hold up an international accord? Yep. Blame the guy that agreed to abide by the ruling of the court. Every bit as legally binding.
I don't think any law was broken. It was supposedly Iran's money. The problem is we are technically at war with Iran. Why give money to our enemies to fund a war against us. Can anyone say TREASON. At minimum it's damn dumb.
I want to elaborate on the treason comment. Obama will never be convicted of Treason here because-he doesn't believe we are at war with radical Islam. Therefore he sees nothing wrong with giving the biggest sponsor of this radical ideology the money to keep it financed. See for the Dems a crime can only be committed if intent cannot be proven.
While I agree with you about the law, when was a declaration of war made with Iran? We are not technically at war with them. You could say we were once in a proxy war with them, but that's no longer true. Having spent almost a year on ships staring at the IRGCN in the XNAG, I promise no one thinks we are at war.
They are a sovereign state, not an ideology. They have defined boundaries and standing armies. We are no more at war with them than we are with Russia.
According to Quaz, we are at war, which legitimizes the use of drones. I am all for the drone use btw. Isn't Bushes declaration still in effect?
And of course we aren't at war with Russia, how can we be, we just gave them rights to 25% of our Uranium resources.
I really question what side the Obama administration is on.
Russia, Isis or NATO?
When did the Bushes declare war on Iran? When was the last time we took military action against Iran? Qaz did not say we are at war with Iran. That's a simplified strawman.
So Iran is no more dangerous now than they were in 1981?
And Where does it state Obama can ignore US law in order to comply with a ruling that was never made?
When did the Bushes declare war on Iran? When was the last time we took military action against Iran? Qaz did not say we are at war with Iran. That's a simplified strawman.
Most of the criticisms of Obama these days are just irrational,me motion based arguments by people who are ill informed and take the first simple description of something they can find and run wild with it. Obama deserves criticism for a lot of stuff. How this payment was handled is one of them. That we made the payment at all is not.
When you start throwing around words like "criminal" and "treason" in this case, you cease to carry on rational discussion.
Nothing in that opinion piece led me to believe he actually broken any law. It's a nice roundabout attempt by the writer, but again a reach.
And no, Iran is no more dangerous now than they were in 1981. Probably less dangerous because their military has aged significantly and they lack the ability to maintain their forces adequately. It's why they are so heavily invested in waterborne mines and purchasing obsolete technology from China and Russia.
You must have missed this:
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Clinton’s state-of-emergency declaration has been annually renewed ever since. Let that sink in: Notwithstanding Obama’s often shocking appeasement of Tehran, he has been renewing the state of emergency since 2009 — most recently, just five months ago. Indeed, it is worth noting what the Obama State Department’s latest report on “State Sponsors of Terrorism” has to say about Iran. This is from the first paragraph: Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for [Hezbollah], Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups[.] . . . Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
And this:
The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited. [Emphasis added.]
Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.
How were these laws not violated?
I don't know and don't think it matters if any technical laws were broken, because it could probably be justified on technical reasons such as int'l law superseding U.S. law or whatever. To me all that's a non-issue.
However, IMO and as I said before, we already ignore international law when we feel like it, and to me, paying money to a country that WE OURSELVES have designated a state-sponsored terrorist country, is the kind of thing that we should avoid for obvious reasons. I don't know the repercussions but force that hand and see if we get absolutely cornered into paying it--that's one thing--but just handing the money over without as much resistance as possible is not the right approach IMO.
Also from a pure political strategy standpoint, this is something all of Hillary's opponents should be hammering her on left and right. "Your administration just flew hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to a country that is on our own state-sponsored terrorist list and that has been under sanctions for decades! These millions of dollars could easily be put directly into the hands of the very terrorist organizations that have been killing Americans worldwide for years!" etc. etc.
Lol you reveal your ignorance when you type that I said we are at war, not remotely what I said. Try harder.
I must have missed the clause in the law stating that there's an exception for sending pallets of cash to terrorists, in order to satisfy international rulings that never happened. Please feel free to provide a link to this clause in case I missed it.
gr8,
I'm interested to hear your take on the incident that happened in January where the Iranians "seized" two command boats (after they inadvertently sailed into Iranian waters due to a navigational error) and held our sailors at gunpoint, in fact purportedly causing one of the sailors to cry. They were released the next day. It doesn't seem to me that Iran thinks of the US as "friends". It was reported that CMDR Eric Rasch was relieved of duty over the incident.
There are reports from the hostages that they were at the airport 18 hours waiting for "another plane" to land. How was this not ransom? lol bury your heads!
When have I ever said the US thinks of Iran as "friends" or vice versa? Ever? As someone who has spent the better part of a year sleeping in the shadow of Iranian CDCMs as close to Iran as you can legally go without it being an incursion into their waters, being overflow by YJ-8 and P-3 and drone flights, and have had mounted weapons trained on my bridge by IRGCN FIAC, no, I would never ever ever use the term "friends" and honestly I'm a little bit offended by the implication that somehow I would. They are an adversary, but we are not at war. That's an important distinction both militarily and diplomatically, one which some on this board appear unable to make.
The Riverine boats that were captured did not have an adequate navigation plan to ensure they stayed safely in international waters. They strayed too far to the east, and entered recognized Iranian territorial waters around Farsi Island. The transit they were making is one I've made probably two dozen times on two deployments, and one which has a specific route pre-identified specifically to ensure you don't accidentally violate Iranian waters for this exact reason.
The Iranians were well within their rights to approach and board a foreign flagged military vessel transiting their waters illegally and inappropriately. That our Sailors surrendered, well, there are a lot of differing opinions as to what they should've done. I do not believe they would've been in their rights to defend themselves as they were in the wrong, and I certainly don't think it was anything worth them dying over. As to their behavior in captivity, well, some of those guys acted appropriately and others didn't, as is usually the case in captivity situations. I'm not going to MMQB those guys because I can't imagine the stress they were under. I hope that I hold up well under the same stress if - God forbid - I am under it.
As to the Iranians pointing their weapons at the Sailors, sure. Big deal. We'd probably do the same thing until we could verify they weren't armed or a threat. We board civilian craft with loaded, condition 1 M9s and M4s, though we keep them stowed. That's civilians... And I've had Iranian weapons pointed at me before, so it's not a real surprise. They instigate because if we fire first, they get to claim victimhood to the international community. It's what they do. They bait us all the time. I trained my crew to expect it, and we made it through pretty much daily interactions in international waters with some Iranian military craft without incident.
The O5 in charge of the Riverine Squadron and his O6 boss (CTF 56) were both fired, both of them rightly so. The USN was in the wrong there, and their actions allowed Iran a victory in the press. We've got no one to blame but ourselves.
Deal is made to exchange captives for extradited citizens.
Separate deal is made to settle the arbitration of a 35 year old court case.
Iran finds out when they payment for the latter is expected and decides to structure the prisoner release to coincide with the payment so that people think the US paid a ransom for its people, when the reality is the payment is unrelated.
It's what Iran does. They manipulate their own people and others with rhetoric and propaganda to advance their own strength and project power and authority that they do not otherwise have. It is advantageous to them for this to appear to be the US paying to release "prisoners". Fortunately for them, even some Americans are more than willing to take the bait because of simple political quibbling.
As I've said no less than a half dozen times, that State did not secure the prisoner release entirely separately and allowed Iran to make this play is just naïve stupidity on their part.
The implication I'm making is that since the US was likely to lose the court case, they settled it out of court for much less. Had they waited it out, the payment would've been ten times what we ended up paying, and yes, that part of it absolutely would've been legally binding under the previously stated accord.
gr8,
Appreciate your insight. Did not mean to insinuate that I thought you thought Iran were our "friends". Was trying to make a statement of opinion (my own), but it didn't come across the way I intended. I don't believe that we are at war with Iran, but they do seem to like to try to bait our people whenever possible, as you said. In some ways, they act like the Chinese - lots of bravado and a nearly religious fervor when it comes to nationalism. If you think that CMDR Rasch was treated properly by the USN that is good enough for me.
I think since they didn't wait for the court, the admin did actually break the law. They could have used the court as cover, so I'm not sure why they didn't wait, unless it really was a ransom. I don't buy this was just some coincidence. Nothing about 400M in cash is coincidence.
This is an honest question asked because I don't know the answer. I could google it, but I'd like to hear a few opinions on this.
1. What international laws/courts do you believe we are required to listen to?
2. What ones SHOULD we be required to listen to?
Thanks in advance.
1. What international laws/courts do you believe we are required to listen to?
2. What ones SHOULD we be required to listen to?
Thanks in advance.
CWS - It would seem to me to be those to which we are signators to the international treaties which establish the court.
We are "required" to follow treaties, they are the same as federal law. Things we signed but aren't treaties (because they weren't ratified for example or some other reason) could be customary international law but aren't treated like federal law (but aren't meaningless either, we generally follow it, and we should follow it). Things we didn't sign could also be treated as customary international law if nearly everyone but us signed it.
Things only some countries signed generally aren't customary international law and there is no real obligation to follow.
But every time we don't follow an international law that most every one else follows, we lose a bit of moral authority when there is an international law we want some other country to follow.
We get the Command at Sea star because we are accountable for the actions of our subordinates. Reading the redacted report, there was pretty obviously a culture lacking sufficient give a shit and some real complacency among the Crews, and you just can't afford that in that theater.
I don't think it was coincidence either. I think it was a clever ploy by Iran that State/Admin was stupidly/carelessly baited into.
This discussion is why it blows my mind that we still haven't ratified UNCLOS... hell, we follow it and are the primary enforcers of it, and we haven't ratified it! We really need to pull our heads out of our asses on that one IMO.
Our treaty process is two-step which gives us two opportunities to drop the ball.
I wrote a law journal article in law school that our treaty with Panama to turn over the canal was technically not correctly ratified by Congress.
There is no law in America. Hillary took bribes to sell 40% of US Uranium supplies to Russia and shut down virtually all coal power in this country with Obama. I don't care how much of a cuck someone can be, it is impossible to like Obama at this point if you are for America. It is absolutely impossible. Obama cleared the way for nuclear weapons in Iran and then gave them 400 million in unmarked multiple foreign currencies to go out and buy the nuclear supplies and manufacturing equipment, which assuredly they will. They have several suppliers that will sell them. North Korea, Russia, France to a great extent (they've already put nuclear power there once), and probably even Switzerland would provide them with certain equipment. Then you have Iran's top nuclear scientist spying for the United States ready to defect and Hillary's emails got the guy hung and right when all of this goes down. Not to mention it was Bill Clinton who signed for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. It is to weaken the United States and any power the US has over any region of the world. Not that we need the actual power, but the fact that while Hillary and Obama make us dependent on other nations at the same time they weaken our seat at the table that basically makes the US position irrelevant in the future. These people don't stand for law they stand for the destruction of America.
