- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,353
- Reaction score
- 14,925
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Obama, like Hillary, can and will do what ever he pleases and those who care don't count.
View attachment 67205469
Obama, like Hillary, can and will do what ever he pleases and those who care don't count.
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?
If I had all the answers I wouldn't be wasting my time on this thread.
So if your point didn't hinge on a "US person" making the transaction...then what is your point?
Lets both go back and read the thread....I already explained it. Go back and read the thread.
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.
It certainly was involving a US person.
Lets both go back and read the thread....
Your point seems to be based on the transaction "involving a US person." So please explain what the transaction was involving a US person?
That's hardly the entire thread, Moot, considering my first post there is in reply to someone else, and you even left out some of my replies to YOU, but you know that.
You're itching for a fight. I'm not interested.
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.
Actually it doesnt at all. And specifically mentions it.Again, your argument ignores the justification for transfer to foreign currency to avoid the sanction.
But then that is because this license that you mention is not as open as it seems:
§ 560.510(c)(2) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize the exportation to Iran or the Government of Iran of goods, and of services not otherwise authorized by § 560.525,
Well law just gave them the right to use the funds in §560.525 as seen above and can also be found in § 560.510(d)(2) and 560.510(a). In-fact specifically when it comes to licensing 560.510(a) essentially repeats more of what 560.525 states but instead of funds it is acknowledging licenses.except to the extent that the exportation is also subject to export licensing application requirements of another agency of the United States Government and the granting of such a license by that agency would be prohibited by law.
Except I mean, you know you it is authorized. Especially when it states: "(d) The following are authorized1) All transactions related to payment of awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague against Iran."So you can't use this licensing to bypass legal prohibitions... such as the anti-Terrorism laws that Obama violated.
The problem is they do not invalidate the exemptions....This is the language that was added to ITSR to ensure that the ITSR does not invalidate the existing sanctions on monetary transactions to State sponsors of terrorism. ITSR was written to not override those previous laws, full stop.
Umm are you kidding me? The article says Obama violated the law by authorizing a legal award payment of $400 million to Iran. However he is allowed to do so by law which I just quoted.This response has nothing to do with what you quoted.
According to your arguments above, the payment had nothing to do with JCPOA.
The document, however, had everything to do with the payment.
Umm are you kidding me? The article says Obama violated the law by authorizing a legal award payment of $400 million to Iran. However he is allowed to do so by law which I just quoted.
There is nothing in the JCPOA that has to do with the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal...
Your article cited the CFR, not the US Code, which was what McCarthy was arguing from.
I stated that JCPOA has nothing to do with it.....No, I'm not kidding you. What you quoted of MINE had nothing to do with what you posted.
Then explain to me how Obama is breaking the law?Great. You agree with me.
You do realize the US codes are recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations?
I stated that JCPOA has nothing to do with it.....
Then explain to me how Obama is breaking the law?
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.
HAH!! "It wasn't ad hominem! He was just attacking the source instead of the argument!!1!"
You people are hilarious.
Actually it doesnt at all. And specifically mentions it.
"1CFR § 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].” Because the U.S.’s payment to Iran was in settlement of claims pending before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal in The Hague – which, judging by its interminable length, is a legal proceeding if there ever was one – the U.S. government could use this express license authorization to engage in all transactions necessary to make payment pursuant to an agreement entered into with Iran to settle the claims. This includes the transfer of U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and the airlifting into Iran of these foreign currencies (totaling $400 million) in cash. "
And what does 560.525 state?
Etc. etc.
In other words 560.525 authorizes funds to be used for legal proceedings before international tribunals and spciecially mentions they can be used for proceedings before "Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague and the International Court of Justice". And even specifically mentions these funds can be used when the proceeding involves the "enforcements of awards, decision, or orders resulting form these proceedings. "And specifically says these funds can be used when necessary to "execution of the awards"
Well law just gave them the right to use the funds in §560.525 as seen above and can also be found in § 560.510(d)(2) and 560.510(a). In-fact specifically when it comes to licensing 560.510(a) essentially repeats more of what 560.525 states but instead of funds it is acknowledging licenses.
Except I mean, you know you it is authorized. Especially when it states: "(d) The following are authorized1) All transactions related to payment of awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague against Iran."
-Which you know.... The US was making a payment of awards which was related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.... So I guess it would be allowed when the law states that it is authorized...
The problem is they do not invalidate the exemptions....
Who's you people?
Who's you people?
Anyway, I hope you make sure to call out your fellow conservatives when they jeer at online publications similar to National Review, say, ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. Can't have those "ad hominems" flying around, now can we?
Egads.
There was no "transaction." No goods or services were supplied. It was the reversal of a transaction, legally agreed to between the US and the Shah before the Revolution.
The Shah bought a bunch of planes; after the Revolution, the US refused to deliver. The case has been tied up in court for decades, and it was likely the US was going to lose. Rather than pay massive amounts of interest, we settled.
This is nothing more than typical scaremongering about Iran, and hatred of Obama wrapped into one. Must be Tuesday.
Im not at all.Now you're just lost.
My agreement that Obama did not break the law and that there is no agreement on the books that does not allow the US to authorize to transfer funds awarded by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal to Iran?That wasn't what you were agreeing with me about. Go back, read carefully, and see if you can figure it out.
Im not at all.
My agreement that Obama did not break the law and that there is no agreement on the books that does not allow the US to authorize to transfer funds awarded by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal to Iran?