- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It is due to this atrocious record that Congress pressed Obama to maintain and enforce anti-terrorism sanctions, which the administration repeatedly committed to do. This commitment was reaffirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department on January 16, 2016, the “Implementation Day” of the JCPOA. Treasury’s published guidance regarding Iran states that, in general, “the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]” (See here, p.17, sec. C.14.) I’ve added italics to highlight that it is not just U.S. dollar transactions that are prohibited; foreign currency is also barred. Obama’s cash payment, of course, involved both — a fact we’ll be revisiting shortly.
Treasury’s guidance cites to what’s known as the ITSR (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations), the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that implements anti-terrorism sanctions initiated by President Clinton under federal law. The specific provision cited is Section 560.204, which states:
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.
Iran Ransom Payment: President Obama Broke the Law by Sending Cash to Iran | National Review
If you step past the back-and-forth argument of whether the money given to Iran was or was not a ransom, there is a very good argument for why this money exchange was illegal (paying ransom isn't illegal).
Oh the national review says so.
Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. :lamo
One of the unique insights that Obama has brought to the office is that, when you are effectively immune to actual prosecution, and the courts take years to correct you, you can pretty much do whatever the f you want.
Oh the national review says so.
Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. :lamo
The other thing is that neither side actually wants to hold the other accountable. Both sides have been engaging in such dubious activities for so long that they are all guilty of something. To start holding Party Members accountable for their misdeeds would be a can of worms neither side could afford to open. So instead they want it only as a talking point. Something that they can point fingers at and say "see how bad that side is", but neither side is interested in correcting, punishing, or otherwise handling the problems.
Oh the national review says so.
Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. :lamo
It should be noted that this statute was passed by the Democrats in large part as a response to "Iran-Contra," which they had previously gone bat-guano over.
The justification used was that this was simply a refund of an Iranian advance accepted (in the 1970s?) for a prohibited sale. What, exactly, was exported or sold to Iran?
“the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]”
Yeah, but that involved selling guns to Iran to fund a drug running terrorist organization that Congress explicitly said we couldn't fund anymore.
In this case, one merely has to ask "what goods, technologies, or services were purchased". I'm no fan of Obama and if he broke the law, I say he should be punished (he won't for reasons I've already explained in this thread). However, I find it interesting how many on the right deflect away from Iran-Contra while trying to condemn Obama for this ransom payout.
Read the article. According to Treasury itself:
The only legal recourse is DOJ action or impeachment - either of which is highly unlikely.
Ad hominem in 2 posts.
rhip yet again.
That wasn't ad hom. Please learn what what words mean before attempting to use them.
I don't know what that means.
Rank has its privileges.
The other thing is that neither side actually wants to hold the other accountable. Both sides have been engaging in such dubious activities for so long that they are all guilty of something. To start holding Party Members accountable for their misdeeds would be a can of worms neither side could afford to open. So instead they want it only as a talking point. Something that they can point fingers at and say "see how bad that side is", but neither side is interested in correcting, punishing, or otherwise handling the problems.
Egads.If you step past the back-and-forth argument of whether the money given to Iran was or was not a ransom, there is a very good argument for why this money exchange was illegal (paying ransom isn't illegal).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?