It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: Cygnis
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.
Indeed, according to a 2007 study by political scientists Kiki Caruson and Victoria Farrar-Myers in Political Research Quarterly, between 1977 and 1996, presidents negotiated nearly 4,000 executive agreements but only 300 treaties, making agreements 92.9 percent of the whole. Some of these are routine, of course (e.g., legislatively-mandated fishery agreements), but many others are not. Recall that in 2008, lawmakers of both parties (including then-Sen. Joseph Biden) railed against the George W. Bush administration’s insistence that a long-term “status of forces agreement” dictating a continuing U.S. troop presence in Iraq could be approved administratively. Glen Krutz and Jeffrey Peake, in their 2011 book “Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements,” add many other consequential cases to the list.
originally posted by: circuitsports
People may not respect the president but to disrespect the presidency in this manner hurts our position internationally.
This is treason.
If the democrats had done this I'd say the same thing but frankly they didn't and the people who did should lose there jobs.
What obama is doing is pointless, Iran will get a nuke, but they seem to have nothing else to use it for than to defend themselves when republicans try to declare war against them and other enemies.
Isreal has reportedly hundreds of nukes, even if Iran wants to destroy it they can't, and the ayatollahs want to spread Islam not direct it to suicide.
Of course I would rather no one have nukes but that's not the reality and starving those people to death is going to piss many of them off and create real threats.
Was it treason when then-Senator Kerry went to Nicaragua and met the dictator Ortega?
Was it treason when Senator Ted Kennedy wrote to Yuri Andropov, thus undermining the administration of the time?
Was it treason when Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in Syria?
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.
originally posted by: silverdawn
a reply to: circuitsports
Ummm, the Democrats did stuff just like this during the Bush administration and much worse. They were EXTREMELY disrespectful to the Executive. I don't see your point because I don't see a difference. Pelosi went so far to conduct her own foreign policy by visiting Syria.
originally posted by: largo
reply to: silverdawn
G W Bush was President by a decision to disrespect the Sovereign State of Florida and its Supreme Court. He is an asshat who deserted his post, manufactured success wholly due to his family (a bunch of Nazi lovers) and has never deserved respect. The same statement could be made abut JFK whose election was guaranteed by the Chicago Democratic Machine run by Daley.
TWO PRESIDENTS that should be considered as traitors under the Logan Act were RM Nixon and Saint Ronnie Reagan. Both subverted negotiations in order to portray the incumbent party in an unfavorable light. The Paris Peace Talks and the Iranian Hostage Negotiations.
Since I despise all of the war mongers, here, there and everywhere. I will state that the Demoncrats are superior to Repulsicans. The dialog between the folks seeking election has been twisted into this 'peace is appeasement' mode of perception. It always seems that Repulsicans start wars and Demoncrats are trying to figure out how to end them without appearing weak.
My solution is that tell everyone that you are not going to war unless our borders are threatened. Anybody who wants to argue against it is to be told that they are idiots and killers and to maintain that stance til these jokers die away.
The USA has been at war continuously since I was a kid and I'M OLD. Enough already. Fix the GDed roads, help the bottom 98%, secure our borders, tax the rich, figure out our common future and quit making enemies.
As for you I'llbombya haters but Bush supporters. You generally have screws needing tightening concerning the actual differences between these two Corpserate hacks. If anything I'llbombya has been what Mitt Romney couldn't even promise. Why should your bias be appreciated for anything other than kvetching about the price of air? He's done everything your Repulsicans said they would do, he's just better at it.