Treason? Really?

It cannot be a treaty unless Congress ratifies it. Obama was not planning on going through congress, but simply making a deal that he expects US to uphold. That is not a treaty. That is a "deal" that we do NOT have to hold up to.

a reply to: Cygnis

I get that and know how the USA gov works. But you fail to see the whole of my point. Trust with the rest of the world. If Iran agrees to it. Then USA plays it's games. Looks like crap and hinders the ability to do anything but war in the future. What country would trust an arrangement with USA after that? ( what most of the twisted society want's ) Yes it should be congress, but Obama want's what is best for USA and the rest of the world. He knows the Republican majority is a religious cult that mostly wants war over religious values and corporate greed. Also they fall prey to the lies of Israel. Because of their religion and they support them blindly. Stupid fairy tales people live by. That includes all the cults. I don't really think Iran should agree to it. If i were the ruler i would not do a one sided deal for inspections. I would hold the USA to the same standard they want me to uphold too. I would want inspections there and restrictions as well. Or F.O

a reply to: Cygnis

I hear you. I actually don't think they should be tried for treason.

a reply to: Cygnis

There are treaties which require a super majority in the Senate to ratify. Then there are congressional-executive agreements, which are like treaties in that they carry similar weight and become law with Congressional approval, in this case a joint resolution of the House and Senate. Finally, there are sole-executive agreements which are non-binding agreements under international law and as the name implies, do not require the approval of Congress. They've been in use since the early 1800's and they're used all the time, sometimes for mundane things and sometimes not:

Vietnam peace agreement (1973)
Sinai agreements (1975)
Anti-Balistic Missile Treaty with Russia (2001)

From Washington Post (my bold):

Indeed, according to a 2007 study by political scientists Kiki Caruson and Victoria Farrar-Myers in Political Research Quarterly, between 1977 and 1996, presidents negotiated nearly 4,000 executive agreements but only 300 treaties, making agreements 92.9 percent of the whole. Some of these are routine, of course (e.g., legislatively-mandated fishery agreements), but many others are not. Recall that in 2008, lawmakers of both parties (including then-Sen. Joseph Biden) railed against the George W. Bush administration’s insistence that a long-term “status of forces agreement” dictating a continuing U.S. troop presence in Iraq could be approved administratively. Glen Krutz and Jeffrey Peake, in their 2011 book “Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements,” add many other consequential cases to the list.

Here's the Sate Department archive

People may not respect the president but to disrespect the presidency in this manner hurts our position internationally.

This is treason.

If the democrats had done this I'd say the same thing but frankly they didn't and the people who did should lose there jobs.

What obama is doing is pointless, Iran will get a nuke, but they seem to have nothing else to use it for than to defend themselves when republicans try to declare war against them and other enemies.

Isreal has reportedly hundreds of nukes, even if Iran wants to destroy it they can't, and the ayatollahs want to spread Islam not direct it to suicide.

Of course I would rather no one have nukes but that's not the reality and starving those people to death is going to piss many of them off and create real threats.

originally posted by: circuitsports
People may not respect the president but to disrespect the presidency in this manner hurts our position internationally.

This is treason.

If the democrats had done this I'd say the same thing but frankly they didn't and the people who did should lose there jobs.

What obama is doing is pointless, Iran will get a nuke, but they seem to have nothing else to use it for than to defend themselves when republicans try to declare war against them and other enemies.

Isreal has reportedly hundreds of nukes, even if Iran wants to destroy it they can't, and the ayatollahs want to spread Islam not direct it to suicide.

Of course I would rather no one have nukes but that's not the reality and starving those people to death is going to piss many of them off and create real threats.

*Shakes head* You didn't even to bother to read the first page did you?

Was it treason when then-Senator Kerry went to Nicaragua and met the dictator Ortega?
www.frontpagemag.com...

Was it treason when Senator Ted Kennedy wrote to Yuri Andropov, thus undermining the administration of the time?
thefederalist.com...

Was it treason when Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in Syria?
www.nbcnews.com...

And no...it's not treason. It was just an honest letter saying that once Obama is out of office, we will not honor what was said, or written.

originally posted by: roth1
Pretty sick to outright say that after the president is out of office that a treaty that was signed and USA wanted them to abide to that the USA would not abide by it side after. Some messed up retards there. They should not hold office. The congress should do what they have to not get it passed if they do not want. Not go out and say the USA will not abide by a contract to a foreign country. When the USA cries about the rest of the world breaking it's treaties ( except themselves and Israel ) It undermines anything that can be accomplished by talk and negotiation with anyone in the future.

Yeah...that was the whole point. And I'm thankful they did. This ass of a president needs to be put back in his place.

it's all theater anyway. We just have to pretend like "we tried" before invading for no valid reason.

As I said in a previous post in another thread, there is nothing in the Logan Act that can be used to file TREASON charges against elected officials of the US Government.

Congress is part of the Treaty process, and therefore they are as involved as the President. He negotiates, then Congress approves, or disapproves.

Because they are an important part of the process they have the right for their voices to be heard.

It's as simple as that.

I actually hope the Administration is stupid enough to bring charges against them. It will be a great show.

a reply to: roth1

If the intent was that the treaty was ratified and legal you may have some standing. However, the POTUS (stated by Kerry) that this agreement wasn't legally binding. They have no intention of it becoming a full treaty and therefore it probably will be modified by future POTUSes or Congress won't recognize it. There is really no push for a treaty so there can't be an undermining of negotiations. This is simply fodur so the president can state he did something. Both parties have been known to do these actions and it's only an issue when it's against your desired party.

a reply to: circuitsports

Ummm, the Democrats did stuff just like this during the Bush administration and much worse. They were EXTREMELY disrespectful to the Executive. I don't see your point because I don't see a difference. Pelosi went so far to conduct her own foreign policy by visiting Syria.

reply to: silverdawn

G W Bush was President by a decision to disrespect the Sovereign State of Florida and its Supreme Court. He is an asshat who deserted his post, manufactured success wholly due to his family (a bunch of Nazi lovers) and has never deserved respect. The same statement could be made abut JFK whose election was guaranteed by the Chicago Democratic Machine run by Daley.

TWO PRESIDENTS that should be considered as traitors under the Logan Act were RM Nixon and Saint Ronnie Reagan. Both subverted negotiations in order to portray the incumbent party in an unfavorable light. The Paris Peace Talks and the Iranian Hostage Negotiations.

Since I despise all of the war mongers, here, there and everywhere. I will state that the Demoncrats are superior to Repulsicans. The dialog between the folks seeking election has been twisted into this 'peace is appeasement' mode of perception. It always seems that Repulsicans start wars and Demoncrats are trying to figure out how to end them without appearing weak.

My solution is that tell everyone that you are not going to war unless our borders are threatened. Anybody who wants to argue against it is to be told that they are idiots and killers and to maintain that stance til these jokers die away.

The USA has been at war continuously since I was a kid and I'M OLD. Enough already. Fix the GDed roads, help the bottom 98%, secure our borders, tax the rich, figure out our common future and quit making enemies.

As for you I'llbombya haters but Bush supporters. You generally have screws needing tightening concerning the actual differences between these two Corpserate hacks. If anything I'llbombya has been what Mitt Romney couldn't even promise. Why should your bias be appreciated for anything other than kvetching about the price of air? He's done everything your Repulsicans said they would do, he's just better at it.

originally posted by: silverdawn
a reply to: circuitsports

Ummm, the Democrats did stuff just like this during the Bush administration and much worse. They were EXTREMELY disrespectful to the Executive. I don't see your point because I don't see a difference. Pelosi went so far to conduct her own foreign policy by visiting Syria.

Yeah...and the Bushes and Reagan and the GOP/cons have done many treacherous, behind-the-back, screw the future generation things too.

I am not saying you personally, but do people truly think that only one side of the party line is guilty of mishandling, destruction and wanton terror brought on the people? No...it's ALL of them. liberals, conservatives...both sides, both chambers, the SCOTUS, the POTUS....ALL of them, especially recently, have done horrific things that should be outright crimes.

Edit: I just saw you say both parties do these things but it's only a crime if it is against your party - obviously not direct quote...but love that line...but people will continue to forget it and trumpet their side as saints and the other side as sinners

originally posted by: largo
reply to: silverdawn

G W Bush was President by a decision to disrespect the Sovereign State of Florida and its Supreme Court. He is an asshat who deserted his post, manufactured success wholly due to his family (a bunch of Nazi lovers) and has never deserved respect. The same statement could be made abut JFK whose election was guaranteed by the Chicago Democratic Machine run by Daley.

TWO PRESIDENTS that should be considered as traitors under the Logan Act were RM Nixon and Saint Ronnie Reagan. Both subverted negotiations in order to portray the incumbent party in an unfavorable light. The Paris Peace Talks and the Iranian Hostage Negotiations.

Since I despise all of the war mongers, here, there and everywhere. I will state that the Demoncrats are superior to Repulsicans. The dialog between the folks seeking election has been twisted into this 'peace is appeasement' mode of perception. It always seems that Repulsicans start wars and Demoncrats are trying to figure out how to end them without appearing weak.

My solution is that tell everyone that you are not going to war unless our borders are threatened. Anybody who wants to argue against it is to be told that they are idiots and killers and to maintain that stance til these jokers die away.

The USA has been at war continuously since I was a kid and I'M OLD. Enough already. Fix the GDed roads, help the bottom 98%, secure our borders, tax the rich, figure out our common future and quit making enemies.

As for you I'llbombya haters but Bush supporters. You generally have screws needing tightening concerning the actual differences between these two Corpserate hacks. If anything I'llbombya has been what Mitt Romney couldn't even promise. Why should your bias be appreciated for anything other than kvetching about the price of air? He's done everything your Repulsicans said they would do, he's just better at it.

You seem to be totally delusional in the idea there is a difference between republican and democrats in office. To tout that Democrats are superior, on what grounds? Obama bombed several countries while in office, so I find your mindset to be rather rose-colored. Democrats also seem to be quite the scandal people, Senator Kennedy was a star example there..

Your party has left you behind, Old One, there is no difference in the two parties these days, except in the minds of those who still believe they are different.

However, as "high and mighty" as you think we all are, there are still other places in this world who only respect force. In dealing with those places, one cannot show weakness, as we have, and not be pushed further. The Chinese do NOT respect Putin, nor do they respect us. A weak simpering person is not respected anywhere, except by the Politically correct, over-offended people in this country. A man should never be offended, it shows a lesser intellect to do so.

On to your idea that Obama is better then anything else given to this country, tho, unless you like liars, and people who play golf more then they do taking care of business, I guess he is your guy. Personally, He's a hack, and only a mediocre community organizer. He is excellent at placing blame on everyone else, but takes NO responsibility unless it's a boost to his own ego. That is not a man, that is a narcissistic wanna-be hollywood actor.

I don't suggest you assume I was a fan of Bush either.

We haven't had a real President in a long, long time.