It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Petition seeking treason charges for Iran letter hits 100,000 signatures

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Its funny what "they" want to file treason charges on.....this is just another item on the long and consistatly growing list of the govt doing want they want.......
Im not takeing either side...

This current american govt has been totaly taken over by those that want power even if it means destruction, and that destruction is of thier making....




posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Here is the problem in a nut shell:

However, what the senators did do, is violate the Logan act...


Nope. The Logan Act forbids "unauthorized citizens" from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S.. Members of Congress while officially acting as members of Congress (as opposed to acting as individual "citizens") are not considered to be "unauthorized citizens".



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Daedal

...have an established record of attempting to undermine our President at every opportunity and now this.


Guess what? Congress has the constitutional authority to "undermine" the president if necessary... even remove him if need be. The President is not a king, although this one and some of his supporters seem to think he is.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
i don't think we will ever have another president that will not be accused of treason. every president we have from here on out will be accused of an impeachable offense!!! republican or democrat doesn't matter, in the highest position there will always be haters, deserved or not.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Some of the ignorance in this thread is laughable.

Treason? Really? REGARDLESS of how you feel about the situation at hand, this administration, if you're a republican, democrat, or independent, the one thing that is clear is this letter is not treason. Not even close.

Even saying it is in violation of The Logan Act is a stretch, IMHO.

The WH won't do anything about the little online petition anyhow, even if it had 5 million signatures...



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Stupid yes... Embarrassment to the country sure... Treason not a chance.

I may be a partisan twit but it's not for republicans or democrats, I am done with them both.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedal
hey I am a registered voter, where do I sign this petition?

I agree this is treason.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Xcathdra

It may not be treason but it sure isn't right. This is some serious undermining of our country, and then some.


No its Congress doing what it is suppose to do.

Why would Obama refuse to disclose whats in the agreement to Congress until after its signed? Allowing the president to make these types of deals is very dangerous.

Secondly Iran is a sanctioned nation which requires congress to be involved in the Nuclear deal.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CaDreamer
a reply to: Daedal
hey I am a registered voter, where do I sign this petition?

I agree this is treason.



It's against terms and conditions I believe to promote signing of petitions. Got find that by yourself, sorry.




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Xcathdra

It may not be treason but it sure isn't right. This is some serious undermining of our country, and then some.


No its Congress doing what it is suppose to do.

Why would Obama refuse to disclose whats in the agreement to Congress until after its signed? Allowing the president to make these types of deals is very dangerous.

Secondly Iran is a sanctioned nation which requires congress to be involved in the Nuclear deal.


Even if an agreement is reached between Iran and the U.S. it would be up to congress to debate whether or not to ratify it. So basically what this letter is saying is that, it doesn't matter what the terms of the deal are because Republicans will be against it no matter what.
edit on 3/13/2015 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the UNSC lifts sanctions against Iran, albeit an agreement is made, congress may find it more difficult to undo.

Source

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

The sanctions against Iran are coming from both, the UN and the US. US sanctions aren't contingent on UN sanctions. Even if the UN votes to remove the sanctions Congress does not have to follow suit.

I also don't think it would prevent or make it harder for Congress to make changes. I say this because of a Supreme Court ruling - The Head Money Case.

in that scotus ruling it defined the relationship of foreign treaties and the US Constitution. They stated foreign agreements are subordinate to the Constitution. It also places any agreement that the US signs onto into the Federal body of law. This means Congress can in fact make changes to agreements, in addition it allows the individual to challenge treaties based on adverse conditions affecting them.

The other issue people are over looking is the fact Obama is done. A new President will be elected and to be quite honest, at this point in time I think a Republican is going to win. If that happens the entire deal could be further jeopardized.

Here is the thing -
All Congress wanted was to be kept in the loop and the ability to see the agreement before its signed. Why would Obama refuse that request?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrAverage

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Daedal

...have an established record of attempting to undermine our President at every opportunity and now this.


Guess what? Congress has the constitutional authority to "undermine" the president if necessary... even remove him if need be.


Not like that, they don't!

They are supposed to utilize the legislative process to accomplish their goals, which for some reason seems to be the last thing in the world they are willing to do.

If you can't see what's wrong with what they did, I feel sorry for you.

They remind me of a spoiled kid who, when he finds out he not winning a game, flips the entire board and all the game pieces into the air ending the game for everyone.

Except for the fact that this game could end in nuclear war for us and our allies.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Xcathdra

It may not be treason but it sure isn't right. This is some serious undermining of our country, and then some.


No its Congress doing what it is suppose to do.

Why would Obama refuse to disclose whats in the agreement to Congress until after its signed? Allowing the president to make these types of deals is very dangerous.

Secondly Iran is a sanctioned nation which requires congress to be involved in the Nuclear deal.


Sending a letter to a foreign leader during multi-country negotiations where no agreements have yet been reached telling them the U.S. wont' stand by any deal is what Congress is supposed to do?

Really?

What is there to disclose until negotiations are complete?

No. This isn't what Congress is supposed to do.

Maybe this wouldn't be so outrageous is they had presented some sort of viable alternate and weren't in bed sucking the war-drum beating defense industry and neocons.



It's almost as though they want a nuclear Middle East.
edit on 3/13/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Cotton’s Reckless Iran Policy

Newly-elected Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton wants to make our Iran policy even worse:


Cotton recommends adopting a clear policy of regime change; “cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions toward Iran, starting with these sham nuclear negotiations”; enact immediate, crippling sanctions; and make our military threat more credible [bold mine-DL].

As Noah Millman pointed out in his excellent post on North Korea last week, the difficulty that the U.S. faces in its dealings with recalcitrant regimes and their patrons is not that our threats are not believed. On the contrary, the U.S. suffers from having a very well-established and well-known record for subverting and/or directly attacking regimes it dislikes, and that makes it very hard for other regimes to believe U.S. officials’ pledges when they try to pursue a negotiated compromise. Hawks assume that Iran doubts that the U.S. would attack and therefore thinks that it can do whatever it wants with impunity, but in reality the Iranian regime assumes that Washington seeks their downfall one way or another and views every tactic as a means to that same end.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

You deserve an applause. I loved your post. Funny and at the same time informative.


Edit: By the way. I think this is all bibi's fault/idea. Cause, before this infamous letter, "someone" was at congress fear-mongering those dudes over there. I bet the letter was written in Tel Aviv or somewhere above the Atlantic ocean. just saying ..
edit on 13/3/2015 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity



Maybe this wouldn't be so outrageous is they had presented some sort of viable alternate and weren't in bed sucking the war-drum beating defense industry and neocons


You do fully realize the "left" / this administration has been waging war in the ME since Obama was president right ? Aren't we currently, funding training, and arming several insane militant groups right now against Assad ? Didn't we bomb the hell out of Libya, so that insane militants could take it over, insuring further war & aggression, under said administration ? Are we still drone bombing the # out of an arab country that looks at us crossed eyed ?

To scream one side is warmongering, while the other side actually engages in it ; Is disingenuous



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Daedal

Crazy.


The fact that it's on a White House .gov website tells me that this is serious s#.



Apart from this issue...The White House open petition site is for the public to pitch ideas and vent issues and if it gets enough support...a promise of at least a response from the WH. Good idea IMO...

But as far as the fact it is on a .gov site meaning it is "serious s#"? There was also a petition to build the "Death Star" and it got more than 100k signatures as well



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You mean they DIDN'T build the Death Star after that?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

How do you know they didn't?




top topics



 
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join