President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

[Tanngrisnir]

Apparently it is to YOU; this post makes no sense.

Why leave the actual relevant part of the quote "in"? You'd probably want to in order to argue honestly. Of course, if that's not a concern of yours, then understood.

You're either being purposefully obtuse or don't have the capacity to understand the simple English that I used. Why leave THIS in: "Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration."

Eh. You inability to follow along in a post simply isn't my problem.

 

[jmotivator]

The text of the law, and thus its scope, is entirely relevant to determining if the law was violated. I know this will come as a shock, but.... That's how the law actually works.

Again: This was not a payoff, the government did not give Iran $400 million as part of a prisoner exchange.

It still doesn't matter. The law in question here is not ITSR, the law in question is 31 C.F.R. 560.204:


§ 560.204 Prohibited exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of goods, technology, or services to Iran.

Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, 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, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that:

(a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran; or

(b) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology, or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped, or reexported exclusively or predominantly to Iran or the Government of Iran.

So distribution of funds related to transactions before May 7, 1995 are prohibited under the statute. The law clearly states that the prohibition exists in spite of any agreement that predates the passage of the law, invalidating all such transactions. It is this law that has kept those funds out of the hands of Iran all these years, and ITSR didn't change them, it reinforced them as superseding any license granted under ITSR.

They settled a lawsuit. They gave back Iran its own money. Thus, the sanctions do not apply.

False. The law prohibits such action, and the license granted under ITSR does not supersede the prohibition established by § 560.204. Infact, as I have already presented, the ITSR was written specifically to not tread on § 560.204 prohibitions by specifically stating that such license is not granted in cases where such license violates existing prohibitions.

 

[Excon]

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).

And then there is this.

Paying Ransom to Iran
Lee Smith, The Weekly Standard

" . . . Let's look at the details. Administration spokesmen argue that the $400 million paid out was Tehran's money to begin with. But that's not true. The $400 million was a payment received from the shah of Iran for a weapons deal with Washington that was never consummated because he was toppled by the Islamic revolution in 1979. Thus Washington held the money. Later, American victims of Iranian terrorism won judgments against the Islamic Republic in U.S. courts, and the Clinton administration, as a Newsweek article reported in January, promised that the settlements would be paid out of the $400 million. But the Clinton White House never reimbursed the Treasury Department, nor did the Bush administration. The $400 million that Obama aides say belongs to Iran should have long ago been distributed to Iran's American victims and their families. Instead, it was U.S. taxpayers who compensated the victims of Iranian terror. And then we paid $400 million a second time, in January, to the Iranians themselves. The $1.3 billion of interest that the United States is supposed to have owed the Iranians is simply a fiction the Obama administration contrived to sweeten the pot, since the United States was under no legal obligation to pay Iran money that was no longer Iran's. Yes, it was ransom, billed to the U.S. taxpayer. . . ."

 

[Harshaw]

Obviously possible. It's happened.

No. Presidents do not have the authority to unilaterally change statutory law.

Apparently you don't understand analogies. It is not within my power to bestow that understanding upon you.

No, I understand them perfectly; yours is simply awful and inapplicable, and I already explained to you why.

Conditions have changed. Why would you even assert something like that? Obviously they have changed.

Iran has done absolutely nothing which change the conditions under which the law was passed.

And yes, when a law is rendered obsolete by an action that supersedes it, the rest is formality.

Again, you appear to be arguing that people choosing not to follow the law renders the law defunct.

When same sex marriage was legalized, it was legalized instantly (and you have agreed that this is how it works), no one had to wait until Congress or any State legislatures got to work changing the laws.

So what? The entire legal understructure was changed. No legal underpinning of the laws in question HERE have changed, and no one (serious) argues that they have.

The President has the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations. How do you not know this? You're trying to do this black letter, by the book interpretation without making any inferences about how A effects B when C happens.

The President has no power to make a TREATY without Congress. A TREATY may constitute a pro tanto repeal of statutory law (or it may not), but there is no TREATY in place here. There is only an "executive agreement," which is binding on nothing and no one other than the particular administration who made it. Administration -- not Congress, not the US Code, not the CFRs, but ONLY the administration who made it.

The President does NOT have the power to nullify statutory law on his own.

See above.

Having been wrong "above," you're wrong here.

Pt. 1

 

[Green Hornet]

The President has the authority under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. See also Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

 

[Harshaw]

Pt. 2

And that means what?

It means you overstated his credentials, of course. How do you not understand that?

How does that warrant your assumption that he doesn't know as much about the Constitution as say----you?

I made no such assumption. I attacked the underpinning of your ASSERTION, that his qualifications automatically mean he's an expert in this particular thing.

How do you make the assumption that he just decided to do this Iran deal without understanding the limitations of his office?

I made no such assumption. In fact, I'd actually assert the opposite: he has done things as President that he has previously stated is outside the authority of the office, so he KNOWS the limitation of his office; he just doesn't always CARE.

r that his advisors didn't thoroughly brief and let him know the potential pitfalls before acting? This deal was years in the making, but you assume that during that time, no one bothered to see if it was permissible?

See, this is just plain stupid. I made no such assertions, nor implications, and if you have make things up so brazenly, then you might not actually think you're right. Because if you're right, you don't have to make things up.

So that year I took in law school, with another year in criminal procedure doesn't count?

Maybe you should have stayed in. You might not be making the fundamental errors you've been making if you had.

I'm sure glad I met you so that now I can start learning about how the Constitution functions.

Looks like you need to learn it from somewhere.

And to not give one credit (in this case Obama) for what he is highly educated in

Didn't do anything of the sort.

Is it possible for you to argue honestly? You have not demonstrated any such thing.

is... I don't know what to call it. For example, I give credit to Trump for knowing all about bankruptcy law due to his extensive experience in it. If he wants to tell me how it works, I'll listen to him. I don't work in bankruptcy, nor do I plan to, so I'll listen to someone who does.

Who said anything about Trump?

Oh, you're making more assumptions, aren't you? Silly rabbit.

1. Wrong

Funny; you haven't stopped making assumptions. You just let out a litter of them in the post above. So no, not wrong -- and your very wording in the previous post, that you haven't actually done the research, but you're sure this transaction isn't illegal -- is you stating clearly that you're making an assumption.

I think you may need to go back and take a refresher on how words work.

2. Here's the deal. Real legal research takes time. And I've done it for people on forums just like this one. What I learned from that is that it's a waste of time. People read a statute, come to a seriously erroneous conclusion about it, and then start drawing conclusion that have no basis in anything. Then I look it up, find on-point case history, and post it with explanations. To do that usually seems to take an hour or two. Then what happens? Either no response or a response that is utterly bereft of any willingness to understand. Or they just don't read it and keep on with their initial and wrong idea. So I don't bother. And you seem to be just the type of person I'm talking about. If you were familiar with the concepts that I talked about, your responses to it would be very different. But they're not.

So, in fact, NO, you're NOT going to bother finding out if your assumption is correct.

3. Precedent is what lower courts are generally obligated to use in making their decisions. There isn't a law saying it must be used in every instance, because things come up that challenge certain laws. But it is one of the most important concepts in deciding cases. So what you need to do, if you want your argument to carry any legal weight, is present proof that an unlawful act by the President has taken place. And that proof must consist of a statute with an authoritative interpretation of it that is on point with this transaction.

ETA: Go read American Ins. v Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). It took me 5 minutes to find.

That is actually not how any of this works. No wonder you quit law school. It was probably a good move for you.

 

[Harshaw]

You're either being purposefully obtuse or don't have the capacity to understand the simple English that I used. Why leave THIS in: "Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration."

Eh. You inability to follow along in a post simply isn't my problem.

Not sure if you're that confused or that dishonest. Of course, if this is "simple English" to you:

So why leave it in why leave it in the post, if that's the case?

. . . .

Look, you quoted the wrong part of the post. End of story.

 

[jmotivator]

And then there is this.

​

Excellent point. If a court awarded the $400 million as damages to victims of Iranian terrorism in the 90s then the $400 million was not there to give back to Iran.

So we, the taxpayer, are on the hook for this $400 million....

 

[Visbek]

It still doesn't matter. The law in question here is not ITSR, the law in question is 31 C.F.R. 560.204...

Erm... the 31 CFR 560 is the ITSR.

It also includes an explicit exemption for this legal settlement. As you already know, because that text was already quoted in this thread, and you replied to it.

Here it is again.

31 CFR 560.210 - Exempt transactions
(f) The prohibitions in § 560.211 do not apply to property and interests in property of the Government of Iran that were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, and thereafter made subject to the transfer directives set forth in Executive Order 12281 of January 19, 1981, and implementing regulations thereunder.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/560.210

Yet again! The Shah bought a bunch of weapons (mostly planes) from the US, and the US refused to deliver them because of the hostage situation, and also refused to refund the money. It's been held up in court ever since.

I also don't know which US officials actually said we delivered Euros because of the ITSR, I haven't found any official statement to that effect. Earnest said on 8/3 that we paid in cash because we don't have a banking relationship with Iran, he did NOT say we paid in Euros because the ITSR blocks that type of transaction. I may well be missing a statement, but it's more likely we paid in Euro because Iran does not want USD at all.

So unless you are trying to say that explicit exemptions within a law are somehow magically null and void, or are suggesting that the Hague settlement was not the Hague settlement, then you have no grounds to claim the transaction was illegal.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It is almost like someone reporting to the President is an Iranian or something.

 

[Visbek]

Excellent point. If a court awarded the $400 million as damages to victims of Iranian terrorism in the 90s then the $400 million was not there to give back to Iran.

It did not, which is why this specific case spent the last 35 years stuck in various international courts.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Read the article.

According to Treasury, within its own document concerning this very transaction (to which McCarthy linked), they conclude:

"31 C.F.R. § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in [] a legal proceeding [involving Iran].”

"31 C.F.R. § 560.510(a) constitutes a statement of licensing policy, which states that “specific licenses may be issued…to authorize transactions in connection with awards, decisions or orders of the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal in The Hague…; [or] agreements settling claims brought before tribunals…”

Its perfectly legal to do what the Obama admin did. Its clear as day. Why do you think some GOP members introduced a measure to block such measure that is allowed by law? https://legiscan.com/US/bill/SB2452/2015

“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[.]”

This document from the treasury department has nothing to do with the JCPOA because the JCPOA did not cover sanctions involved in the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Two separate issues under two different agreements.

 

[Harshaw]

"31 C.F.R. § 560.510(d)(2), which authorizes, in relevant part, “all transactions necessary to…payments pursuant to settlement agreements entered into by the United States Government in [] a legal proceeding [involving Iran].”

"31 C.F.R. § 560.510(a) constitutes a statement of licensing policy, which states that “specific licenses may be issued…to authorize transactions in connection with awards, decisions or orders of the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal in The Hague…; [or] agreements settling claims brought before tribunals…”

Its perfectly legal to do what the Obama admin did. Its clear as day. Why do you think some GOP members introduced a measure to block such measure that is allowed by law? https://legiscan.com/US/bill/SB2452/2015

This response has nothing to do with what you quoted.

This document from the treasury department has nothing to do with the JCPOA because the JCPOA did not cover sanctions involved in the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Two separate issues under two different agreements.

According to your arguments above, the payment had nothing to do with JCPOA.

The document, however, had everything to do with the payment.

 

[Mr Person]

This doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. He was suggesting that National Review is a bull**** factory which pumps out hysterical hit pieces on the Liberal target of the day.

Ad hominem in 2 posts.

He was (rightly) attacking a source based on its history of proud and open bias, not a person. Might as well cite one of Limbaugh's "comedy" rants.

 

[Harshaw]

It makes perfect sense. He was suggesting that National Review is a bull**** factory which pumps out hysterical hit pieces on the Liberal target of the day.

Which would be an ad hominem, and he claimed it wasn't.

But you don't actually know what the conversation was.

Not that you know anything about National Review.

He was (rightly) attacking a source based on its history of proud and open bias

Um . . . that IS an ad hominem argument.

not a person.

That doesn't matter.

 

[Moot]

Read the article.

According to Treasury, within its own document concerning this very transaction (to which McCarthy linked), they conclude:

“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[.]”

But the transaction wasn't made with US dollars or through the US financial system.


Not sure....but I don't think the Iranians ever demanded a ransom for the prisoners.

 

[eohrnberger]

Read the article. According to Treasury itself:

“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[.]”

Given Obama's DOJ and Obama's FBI, I doubt that they'll do anything about it, given their most recent politically driven excuses to not take action against the DC political elite.

 

[Harshaw]

But the transaction wasn't made with US dollars or through the US financial system.

It certainly was involving a US person.

 

[Moot]

It certainly was involving a US person.

Does the sanction prohibit the US from paying legal settlements?

 

[Harshaw]

Do the sanction laws prohibit the US from paying legal settlements?

It's not relevant to the point that was being made. Neither is whether or not it was a "ransom."

 

[Moot]

It's not relevant to the point that was being made. Neither is whether or not it was a "ransom."

Remind me, what was the point being made?

 

[Harshaw]

Remind me, what was the point being made?

They asked what "transactions" were involved. I posted it to show that such a quid pro quo isn't required.

 

[chuckiechan]

Obama, like Hillary, can and will do what ever he pleases and those who care don't count.

 

[Moot]

They asked what "transactions" were involved. I posted it to show that such a quid pro quo isn't required.

So your point is that a "US person" made a transaction? What was the transaction?

 

[Harshaw]

So your point is that a "US person" made a transaction? What was the transaction?

No, that wasn't actually my "point," but if you don't know the answer to that question, why are you even in this thread?