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.

 

NLBS #41: The 47 So-Called "Traitors," And Their Letter to Iran

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Snarl



One guy (Obama) wants to make a deal with Iran and tell them if they wait a little while, they can develop nukes and that'll be alright with the US.

Sure he is because Benny said so right?



The collective voice of the people (Congress) said, "I don't think that's what we 'really' want."

You're wrong on this one. Congress did not say this just 47 members of the Senate you do know there is more than 47 people in Congress right?


Do you think that a Senate republican "majority" concerning this matter, which wasn't even voted on, would run this matter by a republican "majority" Congress?

Consider this letter a Diplomatic Discretion



edit on 14-3-2015 by AinElohim because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
In my eyes, just because the Republicans/GOP never prosecuted anyone under the Logan act doesn't mean the Democrats can't.

Just because your "team" failed to act before doesn't mean the Democrats can't.


What are the Dems plans with Iran?

Vague at best fairy tale visions that we're going to make allies of these people cause Americans are bad?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

I got about 3+ minutes into the video and felt with all the foul language and defense for Iran and its spoke's people that the most BS was the video its self.

I'll admit I stopped watching it, the news on both cable and MSM are already full of socialist lie's and miss direction and this was 11+ minutes of the same thing if the first 3 minutes were any example of what to expect from the rest.

Try something like this without all the hatred and ridicule but mostly the foul language and you might not come across as a liberal hate monger with a foul mouth.

True or not, when presented like this, its " BS "


edit on 14-3-2015 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Battleline

Makes sense to call something you didn't watch bs.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Then consider what I watched BS...is that all you got, life must be real boring for you Slick.




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Battleline

I'm not the target here pal.

So him showing how the letter was condensing as all hell and 10 curse words makes it all Bs?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

My god, where do people like you come from.

Sorry for being rude but sometimes I just can't help it with a response like that.

I'm done here, you have a ..... nice day.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Battleline

Can't deal with someone asking why you said what you said?

Alright,



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Battleline
I got about 3+ minutes into the video…

You missed some good stuff.



...and defense for Iran and its spoke's people that the most BS was the video its self.

To bad you can't stomach actual facts. So, in your narrow view of things, pointing out that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is exceptionally well-educated is defending him? You should have continued watching.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I don't get it, the President is doing anything he wants, acting like a King in many regards, and the Republicans are the traitors? Some people really see the world backwards...



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
There is no violation of the Logan agreement. Treaties with foreign countries have to be ratified by Congress.Also , would you trust "secret negotiations" from a President whose sole major accomplishment was to take over Carter's spot as the worst President in the modern era ?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
In my eyes, just because the Republicans/GOP never prosecuted anyone under the Logan act doesn't mean the Democrats can't.


Forgive my lengthy reply... I agree with you, and from what I have read, these senators, as well as many people from the past, have violated the Logan Act, in spirit, at least. But what I've found looking into the history of the Logan Act, is that the intention was to prevent a private citizen from making negotiations with a foreign leader.

I find myself hopping over the fence on this one. But I've settled on the position that while these 47 senators did act as private citizens, they didn't overtly offer negotiations with Iran's leaders and their letter didn't have the result of changing the outcome of any treaty OR UN sanctions the US may be involved in. If this letter hadn't been so very impotent (and comical), my guess is, prosecution might have been considered, but it was just a temper tantrum of some ineffectual brats... and the whole world can see that.

Dems could try to prosecute, but they'd most likely fail and it would be a huge distraction and a waste of time and money because of failure of both sides to prosecute others in the past.

The original reason for the Logan Act was:



"act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States."
Source

So, even though these senators acted with plenty of temerity and impudence, and tried to interfere in public affairs between Iran and the US, it would be a long, drawn out legal battle that would appear to be a witch hunt, considering past failures to prosecute... I'm not convinced it's in the nation's best interest (or the Dem's best interest) to try to legally punish these senators for their letter.

Unlike the GOP senators, I think the Dems have thought this one through and have realized that taking these guys to court may reflect badly on THEM (the Dems). I wish the senators had thought their action through a little better.

Besides, I think the letter-writers are suffering plenty of punishment from the public for doing something so incredibly and astoundingly STOOPID.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Try presenting a video that is not full of hate, ridicule and foul language and I would be glad to hear what it has to offer.

Its not facts I can't stomach, its what I just described .

The fact you are the head of ATS and you present me as the problem is worrisome, I would have thought you might hold a higher standard for your website.

I have researched Zarif and he seems to be the answer or the sacrificial goat to all of Iran's problems in the world, we will see.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS I Remember the "Dear Commandante" Letter to Manuel Noriega

Ronald Reagan was trying to overthrow the Communist government of Nicaragua by funding the contras.

A bunch of Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to Communist dictator Manuel Noriega telling him they were behind him

100% and they would do their best to undermine Reagan. The Democrats passed a law making it illegal to give military aid

to the contras. The Communist rebels in El Salvador did not have similar supply difficulties with their sponsors in the

USSR. The Soviets were evil, but they stood by their friends. Too bad America can't say the same thing. Thanks to the

traitorous Democrats, the United States is an unreliable ally. It is all political theater. It all depends on which party

is in power.

power at the time.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
I appreciate that the idea of NLBS is based on you tube, but as it is so heavily promoted on this forum based site, do you think a transcription could be made available for those that don't wish to or can't for some reason use YouTube?

Keep in mind that here on ATS, it is regularly drummed into our brains that -if it's on you tube, it's bullsh**-


Hey now, I learned how to roll sushi on you tube, I learned how to fishtail braid on you tube, I even learned how to fillet a fish.
It not all BS.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.



Please understand that the definitive word in that statement is negotiating. And open letter to a government does not conform with negotiation with that government. If continued negotiation occurs yes it could fall under the Logan act. But as it stands now the Logan act is a complete non-issue with the involvement of the letter from 47 congressman.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
This "Coke vs. Pepsi", "my team is more American than your team" madness has to stop.


OH you got that right. These past eight to twelve years have been nothing but bickering and digging heals in one party against the other.
We see how productive that is. Not...



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

But the text of the Logan Act doesn't mention negotiation.




Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


Source



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's the 1994 amendment. It was written for corporations, notice it says without the Authority of United States government? Well when you are elected to Congress or Senate you represent the United States government the amendment does not cover elected officials.
edit on 15-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
Well when you are elected to Congress or Senate you represent the United States government the amendment does not cover elected officials.


You are incorrect. That is not the 1994 amendment, that is the entire act. The amendment was a minor change.

Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act



In 1994 the fine was changed from $5,000 to “under this title.”

Otherwise, there do not appear to have been any substantial changes in the Act since its original enactment on January 30, 1799, as 1 Stat. 613.


The senators did not have the authority of the US government, nor did they represent the US government. They didn't do this with any authority whatsoever. There was no vote. They were citizens acting as a group of individuals.

I'm not saying they should be prosecuted, but they did break that outdated law.

GOP Senators Probably Broke the Law



Jonathan Turley, a law professor at the George Washington University, says "if the Logan Act was ever enforced you would have to frog march half of Congress out the front doors and into a federal penitentiary."
...
“The Logan Act comes from a rather dark period in which this country imposed the Alien and Sedition Acts,” he says. “The language of the Logan Act is sweeping and in my view facially unconstitutional.”




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join