Trusting Iranians...
- Thread starter paulnstef39
- Start date
You lost me on that one
From Heritage.org:
The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.
Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?
While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of "treaties," which could be approved in some other way.
Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of "Treat[ies]" and "Agreement...with a foreign Power" as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to "agreements" of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.
Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?
While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of "treaties," which could be approved in some other way.
Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of "Treat[ies]" and "Agreement
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You should have kept on reading ... and then quoted this:
A. SCOTUS has held that POTUS has plenary powers in the field of foreign affairs. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. ... so that fulfills requirement 1 above.
B. The current "executive agreement" that is in question was made pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), to which the US is a signatory ... fulfilling requirement 2 above.
C. The NNPT is valid treaty, having been duly ratified by a legitimate act of the US Congress ... possibly fulfilling requirement 3 above.
So, in essence, the current agreement in question actually seems to meet all three requirements above - when it actually only need meet one, in order to be valid.
In terms of the matter being a "minor agreement", it actually is - when viewed in the context of the treaty it was made in furtherance of.
And no amount of emotional hysteria about "crazy mullahs" will change that fact.
IOW: It sucks to be Mark Levin ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
http://www.lobelog.com/former-israeli-national-security-officials-like-iran-deal/
Bibi gets thrown under the bus by those who actually know what they're talking about and are not inclined to be motivated solely by political considerations:
Former Israeli National-Security Officials Like Iran Deal
Bibi gets thrown under the bus by those who actually know what they're talking about and are not inclined to be motivated solely by political considerations:
Former Israeli National-Security Officials Like Iran Deal
Iran side deals.
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...side-deals-between-iran-and-nuclear-watchdog/
And this:
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...side-deals-between-iran-and-nuclear-watchdog/
And this:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
From a slightly less partisan, less biased, and less sensationalistic source (The Hill) than The Free Bacon:
"National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of so-called “side” agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Rice said the deals involve Iran accounting for past military uses of its nuclear program, but rejected GOP assertions that this represented “secret” side deals to the Iranian nuclear agreement.
Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill.
“We’re satisfied with them and we will share the contents of those briefings in full in a classified session with the Congress,” she told reporters. “So there's nothing in that regard that we know that they won't know.”
Republicans have been demanding to see the Iran-IAEA agreements and have criticized the administration for not yet making the public.
“That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement.
Congress is reviewing the Iran nuclear deal, which lifts sanctions on Tehran in exchange for its concessions on its nuclear program.
President Obama has hailed the deal as a major win for the United States that will keep Tehran from getting nuclear weapons and make the Middle East more safe. Critics argue it does too little to prevent Iranian aggression and that it could leave Israel open to an attack.
The talk of secret side deals could hurt administration efforts to defeat legislation aimed at undermining the deal, and Rice took aim at the comments.
She said it was “no secret” that Iran and the IAEA were negotiating an agreement on possible military-related nuclear activities.
She said this had always “been an issue between Iran and the IAEA” and was a sticking point in the talks.
Obama’s top national security adviser said all components of the deal the U.S. negotiated have been shared with Congress.
Besides agreeing to discuss the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, Iran struck a deal with the IAEA on inspections at the Parchin military base, one of the most sensitive sites discussed in the U.S.-led international talks.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that documents related to the deals be submitted to Congress.
Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement before voting whether to approve or reject the Iran deal.
Kerry, along with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, were on Capitol Hill Wednesday to hold classified briefings for members. "
"National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of so-called “side” agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Rice said the deals involve Iran accounting for past military uses of its nuclear program, but rejected GOP assertions that this represented “secret” side deals to the Iranian nuclear agreement.
Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill.
“We’re satisfied with them and we will share the contents of those briefings in full in a classified session with the Congress,” she told reporters. “So there's nothing in that regard that we know that they won't know.”
Republicans have been demanding to see the Iran-IAEA agreements and have criticized the administration for not yet making the public.
“That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement.
Congress is reviewing the Iran nuclear deal, which lifts sanctions on Tehran in exchange for its concessions on its nuclear program.
President Obama has hailed the deal as a major win for the United States that will keep Tehran from getting nuclear weapons and make the Middle East more safe. Critics argue it does too little to prevent Iranian aggression and that it could leave Israel open to an attack.
The talk of secret side deals could hurt administration efforts to defeat legislation aimed at undermining the deal, and Rice took aim at the comments.
She said it was “no secret” that Iran and the IAEA were negotiating an agreement on possible military-related nuclear activities.
She said this had always “been an issue between Iran and the IAEA” and was a sticking point in the talks.
Obama’s top national security adviser said all components of the deal the U.S. negotiated have been shared with Congress.
Besides agreeing to discuss the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, Iran struck a deal with the IAEA on inspections at the Parchin military base, one of the most sensitive sites discussed in the U.S.-led international talks.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that documents related to the deals be submitted to Congress.
Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement before voting whether to approve or reject the Iran deal.
Kerry, along with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, were on Capitol Hill Wednesday to hold classified briefings for members. "
Falls in line with your first post in this thread.
Sort of, maybe. But my first post doesn't try and draw any conclusions. Concluding there are "other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny" is a logical fallacy, because it assumes there are, simply because two secret agreements have become known. People use "begs the question" incorrectly, as a logical fallacy, all the time. The question that is actually begged by the statement, "That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret," is "begs the question of what are the details of these secret agreements?"
"Begging the question" is another way of saying "assuming the answer." How he used it, though, and how many people use it, is "raises the question," which is different from "assuming the answer."
Logical fallacies are just one of many things I find interesting.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
So, after reading all the above, everything in the Arab World is gonna be OK, and Disney Land will begin again in the USA. 10's of millions of Arabs will be moving to NY, Fl,Ga, Ky, Wisconsin, Maine, Va, and so on? Thank goodness we have been delivered from being blown to bits and pieces. Wait, line one: Mr. Chamberlain, line one please...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Iran has not invaded a country in the past 270 years. The last time was 1739 when Iran invaded and conquered India.
That's despite being attacked repeatedly since then by a number of countries ...
The United States on the other hand has invaded Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Panama and Grenada - and that is not counting any of the countries invaded by the US during WWII. And that list may not be all-inclusive.
So to invoke Neville Chamberlain is likely the height of uninformed ignorance ... not to mention hypocrisy ...
And if such an invocation came from a cheerleader of the military it would be just that much more delicious ...
That's despite being attacked repeatedly since then by a number of countries ...
The United States on the other hand has invaded Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Panama and Grenada - and that is not counting any of the countries invaded by the US during WWII. And that list may not be all-inclusive.
So to invoke Neville Chamberlain is likely the height of uninformed ignorance ... not to mention hypocrisy ...
And if such an invocation came from a cheerleader of the military it would be just that much more delicious ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Another example of 'brilliance' from the 'It's Munich' crowd:
Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: 'Its Munich!'
Written by Daniel McAdams
Saturday July 18, 2015
Bill Kristol is the epitome of the neocon mindset: cultivating a staid and urbane image while writing the most unhinged and mendacious claptrap. In his utterly predictable denunciation of the successful Iran nuclear talks, Kristol frames the issue in the crudest terms: if the deal goes through on the US end it will mean the return of $150 billion that was seized from the Iranians by the United States -- and that money will be used to commit terrorism against the United States!
Writes Kristol: "How can we debate [the deal] without attending to the $150 billion that is going to a regime with American blood on its hands?"
Kristol cites the National Review which makes the fatuous claim (first made by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is headed by a close advisor to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu) that Iran has killed 1,000 Americans since 9/11. It turns out any weapon used in Iraq or Afghanistan against an invading US military that might have Iranian manufacturing origins means that the Iranians are responsible for that kill.
Do they want to extrapolate that methodology to include every bullet sold by the US military-industrial complex to every despot overseas?
But you can see how this works: A Netanyahu think tank makes an outlandish claim, it is picked up by the National Review and thus laundered from its biased foreign origins, and then recycled and further laundered by Kristol in his publication. Cute trick.
And Kristol's objection to foreigners with American blood on their hands is highly selective. The Marxist-jihadist death cult Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) has plenty of American blood on its hands, but Kristol's own magazine joined other neocon voices in urging the US to remove the terrorists from the US list of terror organizations. Why? Because they are Kristol's kind of terrorists: they infiltrate Iran to assassinate civilians and foment unrest, while passing off laptops with Mossad-fabricated data made to look like Iranian nuclear weapons activity.
The other thing that has Kristol up in arms over the deal is what he calls the "notorious" Annex III.D.10 of the agreement, which he claims will "help the Iranian regime fight off attempts by others to slow its nuclear program, and more."
But what does that annex really say?
In other words, the parties to the agreement will help Iran protect against attempts to attack and sabotage Iran's peaceful and legal nuclear program. Recall the Israeli/US cyberattack on Iranian nuclear facilities and simultaneous programs to assassinate Iranian scientists. Kristol is furious that anyone would find such illegal and murderous activity to be objectionable. After all, blood on one's hands doesn't count if it is Iranian or other Muslim blood.
Oh, and, writes Kristol: "Munich!!!" That is obligatory any time diplomacy supplants neocon lust for war.
That Kristol remains a favored foreign policy "expert" on stations like FoxNews and ABC says very little about the quality of his analysis and much more about his saying what the mainstream media want their audiences to hear.
Who can forget Bill Kristol's greatest hits, such as this 2011 piece on the "liberation" of Libya titled "The Party of Freedom"? In it he writes:
Indeed the timeline of his faulty predictions would no-doubt span the equator. Imagine any other profession where one can be so consistently wrong and still be considered (and handsomely remunerated as) an expert. Imagine your doctor was wrong in his diagnosis 95 percent of the time. Imagine your financial advisor consistently lost 95 percent of anything you invest with him. Yet Kristol continues to drop his golden turds from the hallowed heights of the foreign policy firmament. What a country...
Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...july/18/bill-kristol-on-iran-deal-its-munich/
Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: 'Its Munich!'
Written by Daniel McAdams
Saturday July 18, 2015
Bill Kristol is the epitome of the neocon mindset: cultivating a staid and urbane image while writing the most unhinged and mendacious claptrap. In his utterly predictable denunciation of the successful Iran nuclear talks, Kristol frames the issue in the crudest terms: if the deal goes through on the US end it will mean the return of $150 billion that was seized from the Iranians by the United States -- and that money will be used to commit terrorism against the United States!
Writes Kristol: "How can we debate [the deal] without attending to the $150 billion that is going to a regime with American blood on its hands?"
Kristol cites the National Review which makes the fatuous claim (first made by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is headed by a close advisor to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu) that Iran has killed 1,000 Americans since 9/11. It turns out any weapon used in Iraq or Afghanistan against an invading US military that might have Iranian manufacturing origins means that the Iranians are responsible for that kill.
Do they want to extrapolate that methodology to include every bullet sold by the US military-industrial complex to every despot overseas?
But you can see how this works: A Netanyahu think tank makes an outlandish claim, it is picked up by the National Review and thus laundered from its biased foreign origins, and then recycled and further laundered by Kristol in his publication. Cute trick.
And Kristol's objection to foreigners with American blood on their hands is highly selective. The Marxist-jihadist death cult Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) has plenty of American blood on its hands, but Kristol's own magazine joined other neocon voices in urging the US to remove the terrorists from the US list of terror organizations. Why? Because they are Kristol's kind of terrorists: they infiltrate Iran to assassinate civilians and foment unrest, while passing off laptops with Mossad-fabricated data made to look like Iranian nuclear weapons activity.
The other thing that has Kristol up in arms over the deal is what he calls the "notorious" Annex III.D.10 of the agreement, which he claims will "help the Iranian regime fight off attempts by others to slow its nuclear program, and more."
But what does that annex really say?
10. Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;
10. Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.
10. Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.
In other words, the parties to the agreement will help Iran protect against attempts to attack and sabotage Iran's peaceful and legal nuclear program. Recall the Israeli/US cyberattack on Iranian nuclear facilities and simultaneous programs to assassinate Iranian scientists. Kristol is furious that anyone would find such illegal and murderous activity to be objectionable. After all, blood on one's hands doesn't count if it is Iranian or other Muslim blood.
Oh, and, writes Kristol: "Munich!!!" That is obligatory any time diplomacy supplants neocon lust for war.
That Kristol remains a favored foreign policy "expert" on stations like FoxNews and ABC says very little about the quality of his analysis and much more about his saying what the mainstream media want their audiences to hear.
Who can forget Bill Kristol's greatest hits, such as this 2011 piece on the "liberation" of Libya titled "The Party of Freedom"? In it he writes:
And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him. ...Our invasions have in fact been liberations…in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.
Ah yes, that glorious liberation of Libya!
Indeed the timeline of his faulty predictions would no-doubt span the equator. Imagine any other profession where one can be so consistently wrong and still be considered (and handsomely remunerated as) an expert. Imagine your doctor was wrong in his diagnosis 95 percent of the time. Imagine your financial advisor consistently lost 95 percent of anything you invest with him. Yet Kristol continues to drop his golden turds from the hallowed heights of the foreign policy firmament. What a country...
Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...july/18/bill-kristol-on-iran-deal-its-munich/