Treason? Really?

So, Obama is working on a secret deal with Iran, behind closed doors, without any over-sight from any other branch of government. He's doing this without any of us knowing what we all might possibly be responsible for, up to and including a nuclear device being detonated in any number of places.

Yet, it seems you all are okay with that idea, I mean, sounds perfectly reasonable. I mean, we are responsible for paying back the debt for all the money that is sent over to these countries, whats a few more billion dollars sent over. Whats the chance we'd be responsible for other atrocities that would come of this "deal".

Last I also knew, the group that monitors the nuclear going's on of other countries allowed to see much in Iran, and were never shown anything of real value.

But that is ok, Let Obama twiddle away and come to an agreement that will either allow them to kick it down the road 10 years, or who knows what else.. While they still go about doing what ever it is they wish to do.

Yet, you all are upset because 47 elected officials got off their butts and did something, without precedence, and might have thrown a monkey-wrench into an unknown deal.

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

Treason... really? No one was murdered, or killed. The government wasn't over-thrown. And if your going to use betrayal, disloyalty, faithlessness, and allegiance, we would all be guilty of treason at one point or another, be it cheating on a boyfriend / girlfriend / spouse, or disagreeing with our boss, etc.

And ass-rape prison, really? You have to prove that they intended to kill or over-throw the government.

I got an email from MoveOn.org about this, they want donations to get ADs on TV over this. Really? More distraction and BS.

These 47 people did something they thought was necessary, something any of us could have done as well. (yes, you can send a letter to any government for any reason, so whats stopping you?). Rather then just going along with what Obama suggested, they did something patriotic, and yes, unprecedented, to obviously no effect. But go on, keep buying into the media BS about this.

After all, we need to brush the Hillary Clinton e-mail debacle under the carpet so she can win the election in 2016.

a reply to: Cygnis

Political cheerleaders, nothing more. They could care less if the world burns around them as long as it's their team in charge.

Nancy Pelosi did the same thing with Assad and they are not demanding her resignation.

An election is coming up, so expect the insanity to get worse!

Was it treason when then-Senator Kerry went to Nicaragua and met the dictator Ortega?
www.frontpagemag.com...

Was it treason when Senator Ted Kennedy wrote to Yuri Andropov, thus undermining the administration of the time?
thefederalist.com...

Was it treason when Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in Syria?
www.nbcnews.com...

don't see how a letter clarifying treaty protocols is any kind of treason.

the mullah from Iran wrote a cheesy response threatening to invoke International Law. since when does Iran follow International Law?

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Cygnis

Political cheerleaders, nothing more. They could care less if the world burns around them as long as it's their team in charge.

Nancy Pelosi did the same thing with Assad and they are not demanding her resignation.

An election is coming up, so expect the insanity to get worse!

That is what I am afraid of.. It getting worse..

/sigh We're doomed..

originally posted by: works4dhs
Was it treason when then-Senator Kerry went to Nicaragua and met the dictator Ortega?
www.frontpagemag.com...

Was it treason when Senator Ted Kennedy wrote to Yuri Andropov, thus undermining the administration of the time?
thefederalist.com...

Was it treason when Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in Syria?
www.nbcnews.com...

don't see a letter clarifying treaty protocols is any kind of treason.
the mullah form Iran wrote a cheesy response threatening to invoke International Law. since when does Iran follow International Law?

Exactly, and thank you for adding those links here, I very much appreciate that.

The old saying of the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here..

Never ceases to amaze me.

a reply to: Cygnis

All the letter contained was a description of how the Constitution worked and the President couldn't act alone.

Definitely treason.....guffaw.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Cygnis

All the letter contained was a description of how the Constitution worked and the President couldn't act alone.

Definitely treason.....guffaw.

Not my words, I'm just ranting about what a bunch of other ignorant people seem to be believing is true.

./shrug

Pretty sick to outright say that after the president is out of office that a treaty that was signed and USA wanted them to abide to that the USA would not abide by it side after. Some messed up retards there. They should not hold office. The congress should do what they have to not get it passed if they do not want. Not go out and say the USA will not abide by a contract to a foreign country. When the USA cries about the rest of the world breaking it's treaties ( except themselves and Israel ) It undermines anything that can be accomplished by talk and negotiation with anyone in the future.

Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam



The Iran thing is all about sanctions and infighting between international financial interests.

originally posted by: roth1
Pretty sick to outright say that after the president is out of office that a treaty that was signed and USA wanted them to abide to that the USA would not abide by it side after. Some messed up retards there. They should not hold office. The congress should do what they have to not get it passed if they do not want. Not go out and say the USA will not abide by a contract to a foreign country. When the USA cries about the rest of the world breaking it's treaties ( except themselves and Israel ) It undermines anything that can be accomplished by talk and negotiation with anyone in the future.

It cannot be a treaty unless Congress ratifies it.

Obama was not planning on going through congress, but simply making a deal that he expects US to uphold.

That is not a treaty. That is a "deal" that we do NOT have to hold up to.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam

The Iran thing is all about sanctions and infighting between international financial interests.

I would agree, tho i think there is more to it as well.

Time will tell, for good or ill.. /gulp

a reply to: Cygnis

So you don't trust the other countries involved in these negotiations to come up with a good deal that works for everybody ?

Or does Obama completely and solely control and determine exactly what type of agreement gets drawn up ?

Is France's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?
Is UK's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?
Is Germany's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?

You guys keep talking about this like Obama is somehow the only free-world leader involved in these negotiations.

a reply to: works4dhs

Ya you should look at what the admins of those days had to say about it.
Or the talking heads as well, many people had the same outrage of today.

There are already several petitions trying to get the white house to try them under the Logan act. You can see them here. The site the link goes to lists a lot of petitions for this and that.
I saw the link on a thread by CharlieSpeirs about funny petitions.Charlie's thread is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If a deal is reached with Iran, congress will have a chance to debate it and ratify it. It's standard operating procedure.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Cygnis

So you don't trust the other countries involved in these negotiations to come up with a good deal that works for everybody ?

Or does Obama completely and solely control and determine exactly what type of agreement gets drawn up ?

Is France's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?
Is UK's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?
Is Germany's congress demanding to be sitting at the negotiation table ?

You guys keep talking about this like Obama is somehow the only free-world leader involved in these negotiations.

Ahh, but according to various places, he was the only one working in secret to secure an agreement.

Source

So in fact, Obama was working BEHIND the backs of the other's in the delegation, to secure a deal, in private, via letters with the Ayatollah.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
There are already several petitions trying to get the white house to try them under the Logan act. You can see them here. The site the link goes to lists a lot of petitions for this and that.
I saw the link on a thread by CharlieSpeirs about funny petitions.Charlie's thread is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

if the people are that upset about it, they need to work with their local state governments and get them to recall the senators they are upset with. At least, that is how it should be done.

Nothing like leaving it to big government to solve the disagreements. or in this case, demanding it.

Doesn't seem many want to follow the proper channels, anywhere.

originally posted by: muse7
If a deal is reached with Iran, congress will have a chance to debate it and ratify it. It's standard operating procedure.

A deal, and a government treaty are two different things.

A deal, is who knows what.

A treaty, yes, has to be reviewed by our Congress.

If this is another E.O. action, and such.. Well, who knows.

a reply to: Cygnis

So rallying together as many countries as possible to wipe ISIS off the map is a bad idea ?

From your source:

Obama's letter suggested the possibility of U.S.-Iranian cooperation in fighting Islamic State if a nuclear deal was secured, the paper said, quoting the diplomat.

Just because some sworn enemies join forces to erase a mutually agreed upon menace to the planet, doesn't mean said enemies have to become bosom buddies forever and ever, amen.

"You help us, we'll help you... and tomorrow we can go back to hating each other's guts."

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Cygnis

All the letter contained was a description of how the Constitution worked and the President couldn't act alone.

Definitely treason.....guffaw.

You're off message. Even the GOP Senators who signed the letter aren't being that patronizing.

From New Republic:

Republicans have made no secret of their desire to sabotage multilateral negotiations over the Iranian government’s nuclear capabilities. That was the near-explicit purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last week. It’s what Senator Tom Cotton was getting at several weeks ago, when he said, “the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence.” And it’s supposedly the purpose of an open letter Cotton wrote—and that 47 Republicans signed—advising the Iranian government that the U.S. political system probably won’t sustain any deal they reach with the Obama administration.

From the Cato Institute blog :

In response to media inquiries, GOP Senators gave embarrassing explanations of the letter. Most absurd was Cotton’s protestation that the letter was intended to help produce a better deal. This claim is absurd not because the causal pathway from this letter to a better deal is dubious (although it is), but because Cotton has made perfectly clear that his goal is the destruction of negotiations, not improving them. As he remarked at a January Heritage Foundation event:

the end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak.

Other legislators’ responses were hardly better. Signatory and presidential hopeful Rand Paul asserted that despite its salutation to “the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and its translation into Farsi, the letter was in fact addressed to the administration. John McCain took a different interpretation, claiming the letter was intended to signal to Iran that Congress will play a role in implementing any deal, shrugging that “maybe [the letter] wasn’t the best way to do that.”

They've all admitted that the letter had an intent and it wasn't to be a primer on US policy negotiation.