Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[PaintMyHouse]

We should all be appalled and embarrassed by the childish and treasonous behavior of these warmongering NaziCon Senators.

Sounds like Biden let loose on the little bastards. Oh well, now Iran has just the excuse it needed to walk away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What at a kick. We have some on the far right discussing this issue as if they understand it. The President is the branch of government who negotiates treaties, without help of Congress before it is submitted to Congress. The Senate is responsible for ratifying the treaty.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

this is from your link above

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic


Former CIA Director Robert Gates said so during his 2006 Senate confirmation hearings for secretary of defense, when he noted—while serving as a university president—that Iran is surrounded by “powers with nuclear weapons,” including “the Israelis to the west.” Former President Jimmy Carter said so in 2008 and again this year, in interviews and speeches in which he pegged the number of Israel’s nuclear warheads at 150 to around 300.

But due to a quirk of federal secrecy rules, such remarks generally cannot be made even now by those who work for the U.S. government and hold active security clearances. In fact, U.S. officials, even those on Capitol Hill, are routinely admonished not to mention the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal and occasionally punished when they do so.

The policy of never publicly confirming what a scholar once called one of the world’s “worst-kept secrets” dates from a political deal between the United States and Israel in the late 1960s. Its consequence has been to help Israel maintain a distinctive military posture in the Middle East while avoiding the scrutiny—and occasional disapprobation—applied to the world’s eight acknowledged nuclear powers.

But the U.S. policy of shielding the Israeli program has recently provoked new controversy, partly because of allegations that it played a role in the censure of a well-known national-laboratory arms researcher in July, after he published an article in which he acknowledged that Israel has nuclear arms. Some scholars and experts are also complaining that the government’s lack of candor is complicating its high-profile campaign to block the development of nuclear arms in Iran, as well as U.S.-led planning for a potential treaty prohibiting nuclear arms anywhere in the region.

 

[asterism]

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

The two authors seem to be currently employed.

R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity

Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian

Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?

That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact: Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....

Why do I have to explain a point that I don't agree with? You are the one making claims about some conspiracy to keep people unaware of something that's very well known.

So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

It depends on what the President is doing. If, in fact, he is negotiating an agreement between himself and the leaders of Iran, then he does not need senatorial ratification....but then it is not a treaty and can not be enforced by the law as it is not a law and any funding for it would require congressional approval.

If it is a treaty, he (or a diplomat of his choice) will sign that treaty and then that treaty is presented to the senate for ratification. For a treaty to be ratified and considered law, it requires 67 votes of approval in the senate. The senate can decide to not vote at all o nit if they prefer and the treaty will sit in the senate until the senate majority leader opts to address it...and that can be 100 years down the road...or a month down the road.

Once the treaty is ratified by the senate, it is returned to the President for the final signature declaring it as law.

 

[asterism]

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

this is from your link above

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic


Former CIA Director Robert Gates said so during his 2006 Senate confirmation hearings for secretary of defense, when he noted—while serving as a university president—that Iran is surrounded by “powers with nuclear weapons,” including “the Israelis to the west.” Former President Jimmy Carter said so in 2008 and again this year, in interviews and speeches in which he pegged the number of Israel’s nuclear warheads at 150 to around 300.

But due to a quirk of federal secrecy rules, such remarks generally cannot be made even now by those who work for the U.S. government and hold active security clearances. In fact, U.S. officials, even those on Capitol Hill, are routinely admonished not to mention the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal and occasionally punished when they do so.

The policy of never publicly confirming what a scholar once called one of the world’s “worst-kept secrets” dates from a political deal between the United States and Israel in the late 1960s. Its consequence has been to help Israel maintain a distinctive military posture in the Middle East while avoiding the scrutiny—and occasional disapprobation—applied to the world’s eight acknowledged nuclear powers.

But the U.S. policy of shielding the Israeli program has recently provoked new controversy, partly because of allegations that it played a role in the censure of a well-known national-laboratory arms researcher in July, after he published an article in which he acknowledged that Israel has nuclear arms. Some scholars and experts are also complaining that the government’s lack of candor is complicating its high-profile campaign to block the development of nuclear arms in Iran, as well as U.S.-led planning for a potential treaty prohibiting nuclear arms anywhere in the region.

Yeah and people with active security clearances can't talk about Al Qaeda funding warlords in Somalia even though it's widely known.


Does Juan Cole still have a job? This is what he said in the electronic media about Netanyahu's speech:

Netanyahu s Nuclear Informed Comment

 

[BlackSand]

Iran is not North Korea. NK is the most closed nation on the planet. And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors. Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.

The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.

Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0

Quit living in la-la land ... And at least get on the same page with reality.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Iran is not North Korea. NK is the most closed nation on the planet. And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors. Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.

The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.

Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0

.

Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't. Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?

How do you explain to yourself how something so central to the issue that brought Netanyahu in front of our Congress was never mentioned at all . That would be the issue of Nuclear Israel...it was absolutely a taboo to mention that ..can you site discussions in our electronic media of Israel...?
what explains that phenomena ?

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

Depends on what it is based. If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.

It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.

I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long. Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations. It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.

If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.

And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?

This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.

you seemed to forget that I was responding to what you said.

If, in fact, all Obama is doing is letting Iran know that he plans to enforce the existing treaty, (as you said may be the case), such would not take a year. It is as simple as saying "we are enforcing the treaty"...

But, seeing as it has taken over a year, then it stands to reason that he is negotiating...meaning the terms of the existing treaty would be altered...making it a new treaty and subjecting it to the constitutional process of senate ratification.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why do I have to explain a point that I don't agree with? You are the one making claims about some conspiracy to keep people unaware of something that's very well known.

So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?

who in the electronic media mentioned Israel nukes?

If it is not a conspiracy well what explain no discussion in our media of Israel nukes...is that just some coincidence or something?
Why Isn t Anyone Talking About Israel s Nukes
So when you click on the news and see Netanyahu talk about the dangers of a bad deal and the threat of a rogue nuclear state, understand that he knows what he is talking about. After all, his country is experienced in fooling inspectors and lying to the U.S. about its nuclear intentions. It, too, has stolen nuclear materials and broken numerous international laws to build a secret nuclear weapons lab and stockpile. If the emerging narrative about what actually happened in 1973 is correct, it has even engaged in nuclear blackmail to get its way. Given all this, one wonders if maybe Israel couldn’t teach Iran a lesson or two in this particular area of statecraft.

 

[orogenicman]

Iran is not North Korea. NK is the most closed nation on the planet. And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors. Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.

The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.

Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0

Quit living in la-la land ... And at least get on the same page with reality.

.

The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program. No one has access to Israel's.

Your NYT article is three years old, dude.

 

[BlackSand]

Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't. Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?

The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.

.

 

[BlackSand]

The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program. No one has access to Israel's.

Your NYT article is three years old, dude.

They have full access to where they allowed to go ... Same as it has always been.
You are welcome to provide an opposing link.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't. Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?

The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.

.

Good, now we're getting somewhere. Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.

 

[Wyatt earp]

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

And you prove the point. You don't get it. Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people. That's your problem, your ODS.

All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution

It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.

Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.

What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not

We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four

 

[BlackSand]

Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't. Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?

The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.

.

Good, now we're getting somewhere. Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.

The security council still has the sanctions on them ... And if you want to fight the UN over Iran's ability to make the bombs ... Knock yourself out.

.

 

[orogenicman]

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

Is this the norm on these type of agreements? Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?

Depends on what it is based. If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.

It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.

I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long. Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations. It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.

If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.

And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?

This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.

you seemed to forget that I was responding to what you said.

If, in fact, all Obama is doing is letting Iran know that he plans to enforce the existing treaty, (as you said may be the case), such would not take a year. It is as simple as saying "we are enforcing the treaty"..

You are confused. This all started in 2002 under G.W. It has taken two administrations to get us to this point. But it has been Obama, starting two years ago, who has actually made headway with the Iranians. It took them nearly a year to even get them to sit down at the table. You don't ever enforce a violation of a nuclear treaty with the other guy by saying "we see your violation, comply or else". That has never happened in the history of such treaties, and likely never will. Imagine if Russia had said to the U.S. "we see your violation of the ballistic missile defense treaty. Comply or else." See how naïve your argument is?

But, seeing as it has taken over a year, then it stands to reason that he is negotiating...meaning the terms of the existing treaty would be altered...making it a new treaty and subjecting it to the constitutional process of senate ratification.

The terms of the exiting treaty cannot be altered without discussion and ratification by the over 191 sovereign signatories to it. The negotiations is to get them back on track with the existing treaty, and to do it without bloodshed. Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, it isn't simply a negotiation between Iran and the U.S. Six nations in total are in direct involvement with these negotiations (including all permanent members of the UN Security Counsel).

 

[Statistikhengst]

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time. That is not how the Constitution reads. The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.

From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?

A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[orogenicman]

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.

I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was

And you prove the point. You don't get it. Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people. That's your problem, your ODS.

All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution

It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.

Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.

What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not

We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four

The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.