So how do you prosecute 47 traitors? Perhaps we need to find out.

[about_average]

Once again, did you read the letter sent to the Islamic Republic or Iran? I doubt you did. The letter was factual and was designed to remind Iran that the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy or monarchy... and also to remind POTUS

Ah, so you're saying there should be a congressional form letter that is sent out automatically whenever any administration is in negotiations with a foreign power.

I'm willing to bet the Iranian negotiators know better how the US government works than the 47 people who signed the letter know how the Iranian government works.

 

[eyer]

So how do you prosecute 47 traitors? Perhaps we need to find out.

Pretty sure the only constitutional way Senators can be prosecuted for treason is by being impeached by the House first, and then convicted by the Senate...

...still wanna play?

 

[contrifan32]

Ah, so you're saying there should be a congressional form letter that is sent out automatically whenever any administration is in negotiations with a foreign power.

I'm willing to bet the Iranian negotiators know better how the US government works than the 47 people who signed the letter know how the Iranian government works.

No not in every instance, but if there are or were sanctions voted by congress, then lifted subject to time period clause and with specific goals that are not meet, then yes. That should hold true any administration.

I am willing to bet that not only are you wrong, but also that the Iranian Mullahs don't give a rats ass how the US government works.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Pelosi's trip to Syria -- which as stated above was only an "issue" because she was Pelosi, since other members of Congress had been to Syria with no one complaining -- was subject of a long GB thread back in the day:


http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=508765



Lots of choice stuff in this thread from our old friend Vetteman on the subject of how the president and ONLY the president has the right to conduct foreign policy.

Thank you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Also you don't prosecute 47 traitors, you do the only politically feasible thing and ignore it.

 

[FGB]

Trying to conduct foreign policy negotiations, especially in contradiction of the President, is treason. Their letter constitutes nothing short of that.

Ever heard of the Logan Act?

Ok then!

That includes OBAMA for starters and damn sure includes Hillary!

We are ready just as soon as you are!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obama? When, for that matter Hillary when?

 

[1sickbastard]

Trying to conduct foreign policy negotiations, especially in contradiction of the President, is treason. Their letter constitutes nothing short of that.

Ever heard of the Logan Act?

Seeing as they are all sitting US Senators (part of what makes up the "Authority of the United States") combined with paragraph 2, Section 2, Article 2 of the US Constitution, I don't see any one of them being liable for prosecution, especially on your say-so and particularly as Iran and the US are not, in any legal sense, "at war".

Also, a bunch of those yahoos are lawyers. They ALL have legal councils on their respective staffs. I doubt they initiated this play without making sure their collective asses were covered beforehand.

 

[1sickbastard]

We are retreating from all of that in favor of conflict resolution and instead of absolutely crushing bad players across the globe, embracing them and proving to them that we will not stand up to them and then begging them to be our friends.

That "absolutely crushing bad players" thing, yeaaaaahhh, how'd that work out in Iraq & Afghanistan?
Oh right, it cost the country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and produced a situation where Iran no longer had immediate threats on their northeastern and western frontiers, essentially green-lighting that country's ability to consolidate and expand it's regional influence.

There are real limits to military power, buckwheat. All Great Powers understand this very simple concept unless said power is willing to commit the wholesale slaughter of entire populations.
So unless you're advocating genocide, you may want to regard this paraphrased quote from Asimov: "Violence is the resort of the incompetent".

More to the point, why should the US waste more trillions of dollars and more thousands of lives when it's cheaper and more effective to set up a balance of power among the major regional players? ISIS, ISIL, and the various armed factions see each other and the existing nation-states in the region as more immediate existential threats. The nation-states in the region definitely see the armed factions on the payroll of their regional competitors as real threats. With a bit of diplomacy and a little well-placed foreign aid (or the threat to withhold that aid), Turkey, Iran, Israel & the KSA will spend buttloads of their own cash, their own people's lives and their own political capital trying to resolve the situation. And they'll do it because it is within their own nation's best interest to do so.
Even better, because the four major regional players have competing interests, all's the US has to to is keep that competition going.

The strategy is called divide and conquer, except there's no need to conquer.

 

[Ishmael]

That "absolutely crushing bad players" thing, yeaaaaahhh, how'd that work out in Iraq & Afghanistan?
Oh right, it cost the country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and produced a situation where Iran no longer had immediate threats on their northeastern and western frontiers, essentially green-lighting that country's ability to consolidate and expand it's regional influence.

There are real limits to military power, buckwheat. All Great Powers understand this very simple concept unless said power is willing to commit the wholesale slaughter of entire populations.
So unless you're advocating genocide, you may want to regard this paraphrased quote from Asimov: "Violence is the resort of the incompetent".

More to the point, why should the US waste more trillions of dollars and more thousands of lives when it's cheaper and more effective to set up a balance of power among the major regional players? ISIS, ISIL, and the various armed factions see each other and the existing nation-states in the region as more immediate existential threats. The nation-states in the region definitely see the armed factions on the payroll of their regional competitors as real threats. With a bit of diplomacy and a little well-placed foreign aid (or the threat to withhold that aid), Turkey, Iran, Israel & the KSA will spend buttloads of their own cash, their own people's lives and their own political capital trying to resolve the situation. And they'll do it because it is within their own nation's best interest to do so.
Even better, because the four major regional players have competing interests, all's the US has to to is keep that competition going.

The strategy is called divide and conquer, except there's no need to conquer.

It didn't because we didn't. Simple.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

Congress makes treaties not the President. Congress represents the voice of the People.

Obama is the most tyrannical President to ever enter the White House, if you combined Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt into a single man he'd be a libertarian compared to Obama.

No, that isn't what's written in the Constitution. The President is empowered to make treaties, and nobody else.

 

[phrodeau]

You seem to be under the impression that a Federal statute supersedes the Constitution... it doesn't.

Our Federal, State and Local law books are filled with statutes, ordinances and regulations that are in conflict with the Constitution... laws aren't previewed by the Supreme Court only reviewed if challenged in court. And the rulings of the Supreme Court are merely opinions... opinions that change.

The Executive Branch writes them, but the Legislative Branch approves or disapproves them.

So what you said before was wrong.

 

[cowslinger64]

No, merely your reading of it.

I said Congress represents the voice of the People, I said that they make treaties... if they don't approve the treaty, guess what? There is no treaty, the treaty does not exist until approved by Congress. Much like a Bill is not an Act until approved by Congress.

Snip:

Even if the Senate votes in favor of a treaty, there is still another step in the ratification process. Only the President, acting as the chief diplomat of the United States, has the authority to ratify a treaty. With the Senate's approval, the President can then move forward with the formal process of ratification.


http://www.childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties

 

[cowslinger64]

The President wrote it, which implies a desire for it to exist... and so a clear intent of ratifying it which won't happen without Congress' approval speaking for the will of the People.

That's not actually correct either

Treaty-Making Process

Treaties are initiated at the executive level of government usually by the President or the Secretary of State. A representative for the United States is sent to negotiate the terms of the treaty with the representatives of other countries. When the parties agree on the terms, the representative submits the terms to the Secretary of State for approval. If the terms are accepted by the Secretary of State, then the representative will sign the treaty. The Secretary of State submits the treaty to the President for transmittal to the Senate.

Once the President receives the treaty, it is submitted to the Senate for approval. In the Senate, it is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration. The committee considers the terms of the treaty and, upon approval, submits the treaty to the entire Senate for consideration. The Senate must approve the treaty with a 2/3 majority vote. The President ratifies the treaty and proclaims its entry into force.

http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

 

[eyer]

The President wrote it, which implies a desire for it to exist... and so a clear intent of ratifying it which won't happen without Congress' approval speaking for the will of the People.

You keep using "Congress", "Congress'"...

...but Congress is the House of Representatives and the Senate combined, and the House of Representatives itself - which is constitutionally charged as your "will of the People" - has no constitutional say in the treaty process whatsoever.

You need to state "Senate" if you'd like to be acknowledged as understanding what you're posting about on this specific topic...

...while also realizing that the Senate was originally constituted to be "the will of the" States, not of the "People".

 

[1sickbastard]

It didn't because we didn't. Simple.

Ishmael

It didn't because we didn't make the choice to slaughter entire areas en masse.
I read a bit of history of the region. That's essentially the only method that has a proven track record of success in that region, as far as "pacifying the population" goes.

Is that what you're advocating? You want the US to become a global tyrant that is willing to massacre whole populations in any area that is a potential threat?

 

[eyer]

Which is still part of Congress, which is part of the Legislative Branch. I don't see how specifying the specific body within the branch is relevant to this discussion.

Because the Senate is the only body of Congress to constitutionally play any part in the treaty process...

...which makes the House of Representatives totally irrelevant "to this discussion".

Well prior to April 8, 1913 it was...

You're not too attuned to what the word "originally" means either...

...are you.

 

[Tryharder62]

I just think it makes us look bad. Deal with this stuff at home and not with foreign leaders.

 

[Ishmael]

It didn't because we didn't make the choice to slaughter entire areas en masse.
I read a bit of history of the region. That's essentially the only method that has a proven track record of success in that region, as far as "pacifying the population" goes.

Is that what you're advocating? You want the US to become a global tyrant that is willing to massacre whole populations in any area that is a potential threat?

Really? That was the only alternative? Or just the one you choose to use so you can set up your straw man?

The American "progressive" is to blame for the failure in both nations. They are responsible for the failure in Iraq because they saw the undermining of the policy as a means to leverage the elections. And it worked for 4 years.

They are responsible for the failure in Afghanistan for going in there to begin with so as to support the UN's 'nation building' program and even there they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand behind their own policy. (And before you step on your own dick trying to respond, I am on the record here at Lit. as being opposed to any massive military investment in Afghanistan from the very beginning.)

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

And yet my use of Congress is still true...

No, it is not.

I could just as easily used the Legislative Branch as a blanket statement and still conveyed my point...

And your "point" would still be just as erroneous.

Congress = the House and the Senate...

...the Legislative Branch = the House and the Senate.

Congress nor the Legislative branch can impeach anyone, only the House of Representatives impeaches...

...the Legislative branch nor Congress can try impeachments, only the Senate can.

Neither the Congress or the Legislative branch has a place in the treaty process...

...only the Chief Executive and the Senate do.

Here's Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He [the President/Chief Executive] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Can you point out where either "Congress" or "Legislative branch" - the House of Representatives and the Senate...

...are mentioned in the treaty clause?

 

[1sickbastard]

Really? That was the only alternative? Or just the one you choose to use so you can set up your straw man?

The American "progressive" is to blame for the failure in both nations. They are responsible for the failure in Iraq because they saw the undermining of the policy as a means to leverage the elections. And it worked for 4 years.

They are responsible for the failure in Afghanistan for going in there to begin with so as to support the UN's 'nation building' program and even there they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand behind their own policy. (And before you step on your own dick trying to respond, I am on the record here at Lit. as being opposed to any massive military investment in Afghanistan from the very beginning.)

Ishmael

What "policy" are you referring vis a vis Iraq? Wasn't the Bush/Cheney plan to go in, be welcomed as liberators and set up a democracy friendly to US interests, then leave?

And how is the American "progressive" responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan? Are you saying the Bush/Cheney administration didn't have the power to say 'no' to any expenditures for nation building, particularly as the House & Senate were both controlled by the GOP (at least until 2007, when the GOP lost control of the House)? Wasn't the point in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, destroy Al Queda's training camps and disrupt that groups leadership? Why didn't the US remove combat forces in late 2002, when all that had been pretty much accomplished?

Or are you saying the US Military needs to be redesigned as a long term occupation force in an area where the population is actively hostile to foreign occupation?
How much money does it cost to refit the military for such a mission? How much time? How large a force is needed to sufficiently occupy the area? Are we talking just Iraq, or are we talking all of Syria and beginning active combat operations against Iran as well? By what metric is such a mission considered accomplished and the military withdrawn?
How much money and blood will it cost to do all that?

 

[Ishmael]

What "policy" are you referring vis a vis Iraq? Wasn't the Bush/Cheney plan to go in, be welcomed as liberators and set up a democracy friendly to US interests, then leave?

And how is the American "progressive" responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan? Are you saying the Bush/Cheney administration didn't have the power to say 'no' to any expenditures for nation building, particularly as the House & Senate were both controlled by the GOP (at least until 2007, when the GOP lost control of the House)? Wasn't the point in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, destroy Al Queda's training camps and disrupt that groups leadership? Why didn't the US remove combat forces in late 2002, when all that had been pretty much accomplished?

Or are you saying the US Military needs to be redesigned as a long term occupation force in an area where the population is actively hostile to foreign occupation?
How much money does it cost to refit the military for such a mission? How much time? How large a force is needed to sufficiently occupy the area? Are we talking just Iraq, or are we talking all of Syria and beginning active combat operations against Iran as well? By what metric is such a mission considered accomplished and the military withdrawn?
How much money and blood will it cost to do all that?

Let's start with the fact that whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not, it was fait accompli when Obama took office. The investment had been made, now it appears we're going to have to make it again. It was not Bush that abandoned Iraq to the likes of ISIS, it was Obama. Bush is not responsible for Obama's failures, those belong to Obama and Obama alone. So when you start yapping about Bush you start sounding like Charlie Brown's teach. Blah, blah, blah.

And whether you like it or not, Iran is going to have to be dealt with. And we are going to be intimately involved there as well. It appears that the Israelis are willing to act, with force, where this administration has not only taken that option off the table, but has engaged in a policy that virtually insures that Israel is going to act. And when they do we're going to be dragged into the morass. More the pity in that continuing and tightening sanctions were actually beginning to have an effect.

And from a historical perspective, you do realize that it wasn't until the late 1950's that Germany had a stable government. And that stability was achieved as a result of our massive commitment of occupation forces to that nation. Of course the counter argument is that that was necessary to contain the Soviets. And that argument is spot on, but applying that to today's situation have you failed to notice that Iran is now running amok in Iraq and Syria? Has it occurred to you, or any of the other 'progressives', that a substantial occupying force just might have prevented the collapse of the Iraqi government AND contained the Iranian expansion into the region?

You seem to be concerned about the cost of these operations. And that is a somewhat valid point. But those expenditures will diminish over time, there is an end to the spending. While at the same time you seem to be totally unconcerned about the approx. $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we are being crushed by as a result of out of control 'social justice' programs. Spending that is guaranteed to destroy the nation over time. No, that spending bothers you not one whit. As a matter of fact the 'progressives' are continuing to insist that we need to spend even more. Our children and grand-children have been sold into indentured servitude to the state and they had no say or vote on the decision to do so.

Bottom line, your financial argument is a smoke screen. An invalid argument until such time as you commit yourself to the abatement of domestic spending on 'entitlement' programs.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

It is, Congress encompasses the Senate. It is a larger umbrella term.

Yes Congress is used to describe both chambers, but can be used broadly to mean either in casual conversation.

Also, the Legislative Branch is broader still being not limited to Congress; the House and the Senate but also includes federal agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office for instance.

Which is part of Congress. That's like saying the DoD didn't bombard you shoreline it was the USN.

Congress can be used to mean either not just both.

Another dumbazz wins the Internets...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Once again, did you read the letter sent to the Islamic Republic or Iran? I doubt you did. The letter was factual and was designed to remind Iran that the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy or monarchy... and also to remind POTUS

The basic premiss of the letter should be sent to Mexico and the other Latin American countries who look the other way while allowing their "tired and poor" to cross their borders and countries while making their way to ours.

I read it, and it is STILL a violation of the Logan Act.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Pelosi's trip to Syria -- which as stated above was only an "issue" because she was Pelosi, since other members of Congress had been to Syria with no one complaining -- was subject of a long GB thread back in the day:


http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=508765



Lots of choice stuff in this thread from our old friend Vetteman on the subject of how the president and ONLY the president has the right to conduct foreign policy.

It pains me to imagine that Vetteman won this debate.