• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama Violated the Law with His Ransom Payment to Iran

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,692
Reaction score
19,151
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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).

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.
 
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.
 
Oh the national review says so.

Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. :lamo
 
Perhaps. Though I wonder if they would argue against "goods, technology, or services" portion. I don't know if we were buying anything from Iran (other than hostages, if this story is true, and as you remarked, 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.


Or, as he might say, bucket.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
Oh the national review says so.

McCarthy is a respected former federal prosecutor. If you have issues with his analysis, post them.

Well, I'll look forward to their prosecution of the Obama administration. :lamo

This doesn't make sense.
 
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.

Well, additionally, I mean, sure, the Imperial Presidency, Unconstitutional Devolution of power, and all the abuses that come with it are bad.... when the other guys do it..... but we are trying to do good things.... so......
 
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.

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.
 
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?

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[.]”
 
Yeah, but that involved selling guns to Iran to fund a drug running terrorist organization that Congress explicitly said we couldn't fund anymore.

Maybe so, but they still passed the law in response to it.

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.

Hypocrisy abounds, which is part of my point. As for your question, see my post immediately above.
 
That wasn't ad hom. Please learn what what words mean before attempting to use them.

Sure it was. It was an ad hominem conditional (rather than abusive) fallacy.
 
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.

Yep. In the early 2000's there was a Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He was dirty as hell, and many GOP politicians were in bed with him. The Dems had the Republicans by the balls. But the Dems did virtually nothing. Why? Because when it comes to lobbying the Dems are just as dirty, and if they pushed their dirty laundry would come out too.
 
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).
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.
 
The operative words being "indirectly" and "goods".

Now, it's clear that in making the payment the U.S. did so "indirectly" by going through foreign countries and using their banking system to convert U.S. dollars to Euros, Francs and other currencies. But does U.S. currency constitute "goods". You can't classify what was done as a "services" since we didn't do anything for Iran at their request in exchange for payment.

IMO, no law has been broken here.
 
Back
Top Bottom