Obama paid Iran $400 million ransom for American hostages: report

originally posted by: IAMTAT
We'll see how the MSM ignores this tomorrow.
It's illegal...it's ransom...it's negotiating with terrorists holding hostages.

I bet this will be buried by tomorrow. I clicked on the WSJ article
once and then my browser did its thing, so tried again and
it then wanted a subscription to view. Glad the other news
agencies picked this up.

But yeah, doubt it will be a story anywhere but Fox.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Any idea of where the 400 million dollar mark came from?

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
a reply to: conspiracy nut

You might want to google Iran-Contra.

Iran comtra wasn't about hostages or getting them released. It was to sell arms to moderates in Iran who were against the gov't policy of anti amarican rhetoric . Most likely trying to fund a coup. The hostages were being held by hezbohlah and this group of Irainins negotiated there release as a show of there sincerity to normalize relations.upon hearing they were released do to Iranian intervention he authorized thr arms sale.

The part that was ilegal came next where the money made off thr sale was funneled to contract rebels it's unclear if Reagan knew of this or if it was just a CIA operation.

BUT back to the thread no money or weopons were exchanged for the release of hostages. This was simply an Idea the Iranians came up with to make sure the deal went through.

Iran Contra 2.0

Reagan would be proud. Who will be this rounds Oliver North?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
We'll see how the MSM ignores this tomorrow.
It's illegal...it's ransom...it's negotiating with terrorists holding hostages.

It's not negotiating with terrorists. Iran is not a terrorist organisation. It is a sovereign state, entitled to the same rights as every other sovereign state, from the US to Zambia.

Have you forgotten Iran is one of the state's on the Hawk lobby's hit list?

I'm not defending Obama's actions here. But the terminology you are using is incorrect in this instance, and you seem to be spot on regarding most things.

Exclusive: U.S. Taxpayers, Not Tehran, Compensated Victims of Iranian Attacks Against Americans

A little-noticed side agreement to the Iran nuclear deal has unexpectedly reopened painful wounds for the families of more than a dozen Americans attacked or held hostage by Iranian proxies in recent decades. U.S. officials, the families say, insisted that Tehran would pay for financing or directing the attacks, but American taxpayers wound up paying instead........

..... the revelation that Iran never paid the money has hit some of the families hard. They’ve lost the feeling that some measure of justice was served. “I feel like a schnorrer,” says Flatow, using the Yiddish term for a mooch, because U.S. taxpayers, not Iran, paid his damages. Other victims say they’re bothered by the administration’s reluctance to discuss the details of the side deal. It’s brought back memories from 20 years ago, when the victims won their judgments against Iran in U.S. courts, only to find themselves blocked at every turn by the Clinton administration. “There are limited ways to react to your child getting murdered,” says Leonard Eisenfeld, a Connecticut doctor whose son was killed in the 1996 bus bombing in Jerusalem. “Creating a financial deterrent to prevent Iran from more terrorism was one way, but we had to struggle very hard to do that.”

In a series of legal challenges, Clinton administration officials identified $20 million in Iranian assets in America. Among them: Tehran’s Washington embassy and several consulates around the country. But in arguments that sometimes echoed Tehran’s concerns, the officials maintained that attaching those assets to pay even a small portion the victims’ damages would violate U.S. obligations to respect the sovereign immunity of other countries’ diplomatic property.

Though their arguments succeeded in court, the optics were bad. The case caught the attention of the media and Congress, where many lawmakers openly supported the victims. The contours of a settlement began to emerge when lawyers for some of the victims, acting on a tip from a sympathizer inside the administration, located the $400 million in Iranian funds languishing in a foreign military sales (FMS) account at the Treasury. The money came from payments made by the shah for U.S. military equipment that was never delivered after the Iranian leader was overthrown in 1979. After several more clashes with the administration over the funds, first lady Hillary Clinton stepped in at a time when the bitter battles could have hurt her with Jewish voters in her 2000 bid for a New York Senate seat. She persuaded her husband to appoint Jacob Lew, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to negotiate a settlement that would utilize the frozen Iranian funds. www.newsweek.com...

So was this Iran's money to begin with?

Its open season on Americans.

a reply to: cactusman23

It's busy as usual since 1945.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: IAMTAT
We'll see how the MSM ignores this tomorrow.
It's illegal...it's ransom...it's negotiating with terrorists holding hostages.

It is illegal, isn't, it?

It dang sure is illegal. Tells us a lot about this _______ (fill in the blank yourself with despicable names) , doesnt it ?
I recant that a bit. Its just another way for Obama to funnel money to his pals in the ME. You know , the oppressive regime ones.

a reply to: vonclod

Not that simple actually.

Details of the sanctions, and Bill Clinton's actions
on the matter, money was "frozen" in Central Bank.

www.gpo.gov...

originally posted by: ketsuko
Except Iran didn't give up their nuclear program. They still have it, and now they have all kinds of money pouring in to fuel it.

That's because they are allowed to have a nuclear energy program. Signing the NPT like our agreement with them forbids them from having a weapons program.

a reply to: Ohanka

State Sponsored Terrorism.

Iran is on the list as one of only three...

www.state.gov...

originally posted by: ketsuko
Except Iran didn't give up their nuclear program. They still have it, and now they have all kinds of money pouring in to fuel it.

I will bet good money that the US government will have a little clause in this deal that says something along the lines of 'we've just told the public we're giving you $1.2B, if you depart from this deal, we shall alter the topography of Iran, consider this the only warning'.

a reply to: burntheships

From the very same article in the OP:

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement that the administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old failed arms deal signed before the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Journal reported.

a reply to: burntheships

It's a politically motivated list.

Incidentally all three of those states aren't particularly friendly to Israel. How strange.

Also sponsoring terrorism does not make you a terrorist organisation, merely a state that happens to fund some form of terrorist activity. This would apply to practically every country within the past 80 years.

a reply to: burntheships
I was about to ask if this was TAXPAYER money, Although not acceptable I have an answer.

SHAME,

SHAME,

SHAME,

SHAME,

SHAME,

originally posted by: vonclod
So was this Iran's money to begin with?

Yes it was their money. But once again the ill-informed will cry they are building nukes which only exists in that pea sized brain of Israel's PM.

a reply to: buster2010

I find it quite strange how it is acceptable for Israel to have nuclear weapons, and thus the ability to destroy everyone in the region, yet no one else in the area is permitted that luxury.

a reply to: roadgravel

I remember him and can hear it in my head "The US will not negotiate with terrorists." Oh God, help us. We are so lost.