Don't necessarily have to pull out. Just need to use common sense every now and again.
obama paying ransom
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
You can't pick and choose which laws you follow without repercussions. The US recognizes Iran as a sovereign state, even though we don't maintain diplomatic ties. That means they are entitled to the same protections under international law. The US has no moral or legal grounds to ignore paying a debt to which they are legally obligated. As much as the nationalistic fervor wants to say "F those guys!", of anyone, we should be better than that. So I summarily disagree that "common sense" dictates ignoring our obligations under rule of law in this case.
Otherwise, as I said in my first post, the optic created by this situation is reprehensible, and State and the Administration deserve admonishment for allowing it to happen in the manner in which it did. (It wasn't "ransom" but it was absolutely portrayed as such by Iran to its people.)
Why would I apologize to you? You are the one who has repeatedly tried to claim some sort of positional and intellectual authority over me on this message board. If anything, you owe me an apology, but you'd never see me be so narcissistic as to demand it from you. So unless you have anything further on this topic (or any other names you'd like to call me today), let's just move on shall we?
If it wasn't ransom, why did Iran hold the hostages until they got the cash?
And if the UN requires us to give billions of dollars to people who want to kill us, then we are better off without them. What if The Hague told us to pay the Taliban that were in charge of Afghanistan back in 2001? Or if they ordered us to pay Germany $100 million back in 1944? Would we obey those dictates?
First of all, I didn't claim ANY authority. I just stated some opinions and facts to back that up. I was actually trying make a little joke due to the hague ruling about the SCS and your participation there, thus the smiley face, but you're in such a bitch mood you came at me with the name calling and the "factually incorrect", but I know somehow that's my fault? right dude...you're the king of the message board!!!
In the past you've tried pulling rank... as a civilian... on me. And you talked about your security clearance like it was a huge deal. That's what I'm referring to.
Asked and already answered.
The other strawmen do not warrant a response.
The US is MORALLY obligated? Really? To pay these barbarians?
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ir...ager-in-violation-of-international-law-463234
If we are going to stand on moral high ground as pertains to countries like China, Iran, and North Korea in their dealings under international law, then yes, we have a moral obligation to follow international law as dictated by those same bodies ourselves.
Doing otherwise is the equivalent of "Do as I say, not as I do."
Well, I don't believe the US follows international law 100% of the time, do you? For example, aren't US drone strikes that regularly result in civilian deaths arguably violations of international law?
So, in this case, I'd be perfectly comfortably telling Iran to f*ck off.
Nope. Then again, it's awfully tough to prove in a court of law who carried out the drone strikes, or even that they were drone strikes to begin with.
That said, blatantly disregarding Hague rulings is a pretty massive step towards disregarding the UN entirely, and one which I would not favor.
not really...in the law of war, proportionality doesn't mean no civilian causalities. I mean it could reach a point where it's a violation, but that is more in execution than policy.
Doesn't matter whether we think it's a ransom or not. Iran KNOWS it was, because they got paid as soon as they gave us the hostages, and is why they have taken 3 more since then.
I didn't think you'd be able to answer my other questions, since you would apparently be on board with cutting a billion dollar check to any America-hating nation on the planet, if the geniuses at The Hague tell us to.
lol folks proclaimed this was a new thing, that it was the decline of America, and turns out we did the very thing folks accused us of doing way back in 1989.
And yes, Iran was sponsoring terrorism back in 1989.
If you think Iran isn't a bigger threat now than they were in 1989, you are living in your own little world.
I did answer your question, actually, pretty directly in the prior post which is why I quoted it. I actually agreed with you that the optic was awful and that State and the Obama admin should've taken pains to ensure that Iran wasn't able to use it as rhetorical leverage to convince people it was strictly ransom. Iran pretty clearly did that, even if that is not what the payment was intended to be. I'm not sure why you're so butt-hurt by that answer.
There are two separate issues at play here: 1) "ransom" - it wasn't but it was allowed to appear as such, and I am critical of the administration for allowing that; 2) paying debts determined as legal obligations by the international courts. And yeah, if international law dictates that we pay an escrow plus interest, I think we should, especially a settlement that amounts to change found in Obama's couch cushions.
If you disagree with either or both of those points, OK. I'm really fine with your disagreement and willing to agree to disagree on principle.
To me, when someone tells you, "you're not getting these folks back until you pay $400 million", you pay it, and you get the hostages back, that's ransom. But agree to disagree.
But the question you didn't answer is, "is there any regime that wants to kill us that you wouldn't write a billion dollar check to, if The Hague told you to"?
There is literally zero proof that Iran said or did that. We freed seven extradition requests at the same time, so more likely the exchange was people for people, and State allowed the timing of the payment to also coincide with it, which was abhorrently stupid.
And no. I have answered your question at least four times. The US should follow international law as pertains to countries we recognize as sovereign nations. Period. Iran is one of those.
Where I agree with your detractors in this thread though is we don't follow international law whenever we don't want to. All the time.
I'm no expert on this topic whatsoever but I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't the worst offender of international law among peer-group democratic Western countries.
Should we follow int'l law? In theory yes. But do we? History shows not always, when it doesn't suit our interests.
I'm not necessarily weighing in on the Iran cash payment--I'm just saying I'm not convinced that following the int'l law in this case was any more compelling than in any other case where we blatantly ignore it.
And you can't prove they didn't say that: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...another-plane-to-arrive-before-letting-us-go/
Would you argue we didn't violate international law with our actions in Syria, Libya, and Nicaragua?
L6
"Decisions, judgments and awards by international courts and tribunals are complied with in more than 95% of the cases, including by big powers such as the United States," Mr Reichler wrote back. In Nicaragua the US, he noted, had in fact complied with the court's order to stop mining Nicaragua's harbours, and while it had not officially complied with the order on reparations, the judgment helped prod Congress to cut off funding for the Contras. Furthermore, "the US has appeared in more ICJ cases than any other state. In all but two, it has fully complied with the ICJ's rulings, even when it has lost." (The other case in which America failed to comply was an ICJ ruling blocking the execution of a Mexican national in Texas; America's federal government accepted the ruling, but the state government of Texas ignored it.)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/america-and-international-law
"Decisions, judgments and awards by international courts and tribunals are complied with in more than 95% of the cases, including by big powers such as the United States," Mr Reichler wrote back. In Nicaragua the US, he noted, had in fact complied with the court's order to stop mining Nicaragua's harbours, and while it had not officially complied with the order on reparations, the judgment helped prod Congress to cut off funding for the Contras. Furthermore, "the US has appeared in more ICJ cases than any other state. In all but two, it has fully complied with the ICJ's rulings, even when it has lost." (The other case in which America failed to comply was an ICJ ruling blocking the execution of a Mexican national in Texas; America's federal government accepted the ruling, but the state government of Texas ignored it.)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/america-and-international-law
You're right, I can't prove a negative.
OK, let's stop here: you think we should disregard the Hague in this case. I don't. Not much else to discuss. Whether we do or have or will in the future violate international law (which we have, do, and will as I've already said...) isn't furthering the discussion. Whether we do, have or will in the future violate Hague rulings is also immaterial (and we generally do not). Agree to disagree.
Yes let's stop and think. The hague never ruled! This was a "compromise" reached by the obama administration directly with iran before the tribunal and directly coincided with the release and prisoners. TO THE DAY. This was a ransom payment 100%.
Except the Hague was very likely to rule in favor of Iran in which case the payment would've been nearly 10x as much, and Iran still could've framed payment as ransom, and then you guys would still be pissed off. It is/was a shitty situation, and one which State/Obama allowed to be exploited, but not some nefarious "he hates America" thing that you all seem to want to make it.
Trump says he never settles. So if he were president, the Hague would've ruled, the US would've owed more than $10B to Iran, and either 1) we wouldn't have paid in violation of a Hague ruling for basically the first time ever by the US; or 2) we would've paid our legal obligation and Iran likely would've released four people on the same day and it would've been "ransom" anyway.
First of all, you're taking the admins word that we would have lost big. That's pretty convenient in this case. I don't think he hates america, but I think he's foolish. And Iran has already started kidnapping more people. If I shipped money to the iranian govt for any reason, I can't even imagine what black hole they'd stuff me in. It's just another example of piss poor leadership. I know people love this guy and he can do no wrong in their eyes but I think he sucks.
No, I'm taking the word that was widely reported in multiple outlets, including the not-left-leaning Wall Street Journal.
Here's the problem I have with the rest: I don't think he does no wrong, far from it. But I also don't think he sucks. I think he's been a pretty good president, even though I disagree with him politically on a lot of stuff and did not vote for him in either election. Outside of the ACA, there is nothing that I have found outrageous in his term, but I also acknowledge that his party had a mandate for the two years that law was passed, and acknowledge that Republicans would do the same in the same situation.
It's the "team" mentality that does us no good, and I loved the way the Libertarian candidates pointed that out the other night. Politics isn't a team sport. The few who get it right are the few who act according to their own moral and ethical compasses and exercise their own judgment, not simply the will of the party. I applaud the Republicans that are coming out against Trump now, even as I recognize the only reason any of them are doing it is because they are up for re-election in "blue" or "purple" states.
Why would we "owe Iran" over 25 times the amount they paid us? Did The Hague say Iran would likely have invested the $400 million in Apple stock?
I just think we are safer as a country breaking the occasional international law than we are handing billions of dollars to terrorists.
"In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.
In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.
Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.
The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.
Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.
This court, called the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.
This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the Associated Press’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars."
So basically, we made this court, it's got Americans on it, and we were going to lose.
That doesn't answer my question as to why we would owe them 25 times the $400 million payment.
So to sum up, we are giving terrorists $1.7 billion, because 6 non-American judges MIGHT have agreed that Iran would have invested their $400 million with Warren Buffet or in Hillary's cattle futures, and ended up with $10 billion.
OK.
gr8 is doing his best, but this is tantamount to someone saying in 20 years we owe isis because we disrupted libyan oil revenue. It just doesn't make any sense. If iran really wanted that 400M they should have left the shah around long enough to get the planes!
Ask the Hague. Sorry, I'm not the authority on the ins and outs of the international board of arbitration to which we agreed back in 1981. I'm just reporting the facts. Take your argument and disagreement up with them.
So you are saying we are at war with a country that we just gave 1.7 Billion to?
And this isn't the most idiotic transaction in the history of the U.S.
I pray to God my son doesn't get deployed and killed with weapons that were purchased with this money.
... Except that we agreed to this method of arbitration AFTER the Shah left power with this money already on the table... A regime change doesn't and shouldn't absolve debts. If that was the case, the US would've gone bankrupt long ago.
As opposed to being deployed and killed with weapons we sold them before? Because much of their air power, in particular is stuff they bought directly from us. I mean, it was pretty "fun" being in the Gulf watching F-14s fly around Bandar Abbas and Bushehr, and have a P-3 Orion with Iranian flags marking on top of US ships every Wednesday and Saturday.
ummm it does when the new regime swears death to america. Do we owe Russia for destroying their infrastructure by purposely giving them engineering plans for gas lines that leak? Or pretending we had certain radar on our planes? What are we talking about here? These aren't allies.
