- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,436
- Reaction score
- 47,476
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Umm no, this is about limiting enrichment and lifting sanctions, your assertions are pure nonsense and not even the White House is making this argument, they're just calling it an agreement/deal as if it's not a treaty, tell us sport if this is not a separate treaty then why does the agreement need to be made in the first place? :roll:
I don't think an open letter to the Iranians is a particularly good idea. I think it would have been a better idea to do an op-ed or a senate resolution. But Obama has decided to bypass congress for the last two years of his term, so he and his dem allies cant get too outraged if the congress decides to bypass him.
that's just it
the treaty has already been negotiated
the terms of enforcement/compliance are now being revisited regarding the actions of a singular NPT member
If you're going to go that route you can't omit Nixon and his actually treasonous intervention into Vietnam negotiations, and interventions that might have killed many thousands of U.S. soldiers. We've recently been blessed with the tapes of LBJ explaining that to Dirksen. Or that Reagan was negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the 1980 elections.
Same old anti-Semitic "Jooz control the worlds governments" canard just another day.
I was unaware that explaining the Constitution to a foreign government equates to undermining US foreign policy, oh wait I guess it does if the POTUS thinks he's a king.
The open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed by 47 senators and instigated by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was a stunning breach of protocol. One so outrageous that my former colleagues at the New York Daily News dubbed the signers “traitors.”
<snip>
“I would use the word mutinous,” said (Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton, USA-Ret.)Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.
“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.”
Republican senators' letter to Iran about ongoing nuclear talks has prompted a lengthy response from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who delivered an overview of international law as he critiqued the letter.
Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.
Zarif, noting that negotiations are ongoing and haven't yielded an agreement, said the U.S. lawmakers' "unconventional methods" show that they "are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."
Saying he hopes to "enrich the knowledge of the authors," Zarif said:
"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."
Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been "mere executive agreements," and not full treaties that received Senate ratification.
He said any deal on sanctions and Iran's nuclear program would not be bilateral; would require approval by the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council; and would not be subject to modification by Congress.
He added, "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."
This may be a bit of old news regarding the topic of this thread, but Iran's foreign minister actually responded to the letter written by 47 GOP senators.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors : The Two-Way : NPR
do you agree with the Iranian that international law supersedes the Constitution?
do you agree with the Iranian that international law supersedes the Constitution?
I ask again. Please tell us--what does AIPAC have to do w/"JOOZ" ?
This whole "Obama thinks he's a king" meme is simply bizarre with zero relationship to reality
do you agree with the Iranian that international law supersedes the Constitution?
do you agree with the Iranian that international law supersedes the Constitution?
Please cite when I said "JOOZ control the government".
You can shift "zionist" and "AIPAC" with Jews in your classic anti-Semitic "JOOZ control the government" <remaining tirade snipped>
Yes, indeed.
Please cite when I said "JOOZ control the government."
And FYI, it's considered anti-Semitic to make generalizations about Jews, i. e. lumping all Jews w/AIPAC or "zionist". . .
Orthodox Jews protest against Zionism
here is the text of that letter signed by 47 (of 54) republican senators:
Text of GOP Senators’ Letter to Iran’s Leaders on Nuclear Talks - Washington Wire - WSJ
Well then you admit that Putin is a war criminal who needs to be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
But hey Montey I'll educate you one more time:
Article 46
Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties
1) A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2) A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.
I'm talking about international law, not treaties.
When a nation operates outside its own borders/territories, it's bound by international law.
But of course if one has the economic, political and military will and strength to flaunt it, or choose to not recognize it, or IJC/ICC which might prosecute violations thereof, the point is rather moot.
Yes yes, "JOOZ don't control the government...but AIPAC does", same classic anti-Semitic canard
with a transparent veneer, you're not fooling anyone.
Uh, no. Jews are individuals whose religious affiliation is Judaism, and Judaism, you see, is a religion. And religion is not a political lobby/organization, such as AIPAC or RIAA or NRAILA, etc.
Two different things: religion, political organization.
Don't need to, considering you're doing an excellent job of making a complete fool of yourself, as evidenced by your ignorant, anti-Semitic generalizations.
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?