Treasonous MF's.

[Richard D]

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

[Scuba]

1. Yeah, that seems treasonous.

[hack89]

25. Who are they helping wage war against us? nt

[Scuba]

45. Sheldon Adelson.

[hack89]

51. That would be an interesting Supreme Court case

Futile but interesting.

[leftynyc]

29. Which enemy

are they giving aid and comfort to?

[Scuba]

44. Sheldon Adelson.

[leftynyc]

50. I thought this

was a serious discussion. Apparently not.

[Scootaloo]

76. The word you want is "treacherous," not "treasonous."

[brush]

94. Try "sedition" or violation of the Logan Act

These repugs dummies are guilty of both.

The Iranian ambassador has responded to the open letter and ridicules the idiots for not even knowing the US Constitution and international law. He also calls it "astonishing" that officials of the US Government would try to sabotage their own president.

Google it. It's an intelligent putdown of the highest order.

[billhicks76]

99. It Is Treason

But spineless centrists like Hillary say nothing. If Democrats did this to Bush Repukes would call for public hangings. Time to play hardball with traitors.

[Stellar]

2. How much does one have to hate the black man in the White House?

Those people stink up to high hell!

[Enthusiast]

20. They're racist to the bone. It is their prime motivator.

[Scootaloo]

77. They've been on this kick since before Obama entered the national scene

It's not about him, it's about their desire for more crusade.

yes. Crusade is a 100% intentional word choice.

[Hoyt]

3. That's low even for the right wing, war mongering, bigots. But Republicans will love it.

[Scarsdale]

15. So the FIX is in already?

What makes them so sure they will not be the minority after the next election? Just because they are all bought and paid for, that does not mean the voters can not make their choices heard. Or does it? They had better cash their oil checks, and Koch checks before they are drummed out of office. Traitors.

[RoccoR5955]

70. Yep, call it gerrymandering

They have gerrymandered the districts such that there could be more dems in the state, but more cons get elected due to the way that the RepubliCON legislature in the state has carved up the districts.

[TDale313]

82. Yeah,

And that probably won't change till at least 2020- I think that's when the maps get redrawn- after the Census?

[RoccoR5955]

89. Yep

Every ten years after the census is when districts get redrawn, and states get reassessed for how many representatives they get.
I am afraid that there are too many RepubliCONs in State government who have already gerrymandered the districts to the point where they will be permanently RepubliCON. The only thing that we can hope for is that these Cons over-reach so far that the public starts to go against them. If this does not happen, than I am afraid that we will become another Germany circa 1934, or if people wake up, it will look more like France in the 1790s.

[Adrahil]

4. Blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution. n/t

[hack89]

26. Looks like an accurate description of Congressional powers. nt

[albino65]

28. Exactly n/t

[Takket]

5. I wish someone would ask GOP leadership and 2016 candidates

if they just flat out oppose EVER trying to have a diplomatic open relationship with Iran. I want someone to ask them that because it just seems there mind is made up that Iran is going to keep working until they have the bomb, then destroy us.

[djean111]

68. Actually, Bibi wants to bomb Iran. And then keep going. IMO and all that.

Wonder if all of this bullshit will still be going on if Netanyahu loses.

[adieu]

6. Logan Act?

Throw the book at them. Send them to jail immediately.

[hack89]

30. Doesn't even come close. nt

[Nye Bevan]

7. An amazing number of DUers define "treason" as "anything I don't like" (nt)

[Lochloosa]

8. Not "treason"..but....

Text of the Logan Act[edit]
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. 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.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Text_of_the_Logan_Act

[Botany]

23. + 1

[former9thward]

27. The Logan Act has never been enforced.

Why? Because past administrations have known it is unconstitutional. Since it has never been enforced there has been no reason for it to go to court where it would be declared unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi went to meet with Assad in Syria over the protests of the Bush White House in 2007. Was that a violation of this "Logan Act"?

Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader



DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.

Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States after the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit the country since relations between the United States and Syria faltered in 2003. Her visit has been criticized by President Bush and other administration officials, who have sought to isolate Syria diplomatically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=1&

[davidn3600]

34. Yep... lots of members of congress have gone overseas to discuss foreign policy

They will never be able to enforce that law.

[leftynyc]

31. Very first line

talks about private correspondence when this story is about an OPEN LETTER. But you're right in that it is not treason either.

[hack89]

32. Congress reminding Iran of their role in any treaty

Is not violating the Logan act.

[ananda]

9. Hmm...

So, serious concern about members of an opposition party undercutting
the foreign policy of the Obama admin and the State Department by
conducting foreign affairs from the halls of Congress isn't treason and
a violation of the Constitution?


Exactly... why not?

[hack89]

35. Because treason has a very explicit and limited definition

In American law. It is defined in the Constitution. This situation is not treason according to the Constitution.

[AlbertCat]

12. An amazing number of DUers define "treason" as "anything I don't like"

True.


And this act is clearly sedition.

[geek tragedy]

47. okay, it's sedition not treason. nt

[hack89]

54. So they are advocating the over throw of the government?

Don't think so.

[geek tragedy]

55. No, they are trying to undermine and defeat their own government's

diplomatic efforts overseas.

And their goal is to get thousands of young Americans and millions of Iranians killed.

Sick bastards. Very little difference between them and Putin.

[hack89]

64. They are the government

And they have a big role in foreign affairs, especially treaties. There will be no treaty without a Senate vote - reminding everyone of that is not sedition. Would it be sedition if they rejected the treaty?

[geek tragedy]

66. Congress has a very minor role to play in foreign relations.

They approve, or fail to approve treaties. And they vote to implement treaties.

What is being contemplated here is not a treaty, and it's not commerce, ergo none of Congress's business.

Regarding the actual conduct of diplomacy, their role is to focus on domestic policy.

[BlueCaliDem]

79. Thank you for that smackdown. That one is actually defending this seditious act by Republicans

on a Democratic Party supporting site. I wonder why that is...

[Orsino]

61. Betraying our nation to its enemies (the war pigs) is sorta treasonous.

Sedition is a more precise word, probably, but since the possibility of either charge being levied or sticking is effectively zero, the distinction isn't quite as clear as we might prefer.

[MBS]

10. Thumbs-up to your title

-- perfectly summarizes their M.O.

I keep thinking these guys couldn't go any lower, but they keep proving me wrong.

[ReRe]

11. Well... that's one word for them...

...but don't hold your breath waiting for them to be held accountable. Sure doesn't seem very "patriotic" which they swear that they are.

[Oilwellian]

13. This should come as no surprise

Who in our government is ever held accountable for their crimes?

[bvar22]

72. The last I can remember was Spiro Agnew back in 1973.

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew

There must have been others, but Spiro sprang to my mind immediately.

[safeinOhio]

14. and add to that

if Netanyahu is not re-elected disregard this letter and the American Republican right wingers.

[mountain grammy]

16. Haven't been the loyal opposition since 2008

but this is a new low. They really do want a war.

[Still In Wisconsin]

24. Oh, they absolutely do want a war.

I don't think they care that much who we bomb/invade, as long as we bomb and/or invade somebody. Iran just seems like the easiest sell to them now.

[onecaliberal]

17. Where the hell is the Dept of Justice? Or whomever

The hell should arrest these rotten fucks for purposely trying to undermine the government of the United States.

[hack89]

37. They are part of the US government

No one is going to arrest them.

[onecaliberal]

86. Why do we have the Logan Act?

For this reason. What do they have to do, come to the microphone and say we are plotting against America? They clearly are!

[hack89]

87. Why has it never been enforced?

because it is widely perceived as unconstitutional.

[onecaliberal]

88. What is treason?

The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

This IS clearly what republicans are doing.

[hack89]

90. Actually that is not the definition of treason

read the Constitution - that is where you will find the precise definition used in America.

What enemy are they aiding?

[onecaliberal]

91. That is the "legal" definition.

Anyone who denies that republicans have been actively working to destroy the American government and democracy from the inside can't really claim to be paying attention. I'm done arguing over semantics.

[hack89]

92. So you are making an emotional vice legal argument?

why didn't you say so at the start?

[onecaliberal]

93. Emotional?

[hack89]

95. You called for the arrest of these Congressmen

i thought you were making a legal argument when you brought up treason. Without a sound legal basis for arresting them your posts appear to be nothing more than emotional venting.

[hopemountain]

98. how can you say it is unconstitutional

when even your insistence on your assumption has not been proven, either?

[hack89]

100. I didn't say it was unconstitutional

I said it has never been used in it's entire history because it is widely perceived in the legal community that it would not survive a legal challenge.

As a more practical matter, the president is not going to arrest a bunch of republicans for opposing his policies. It is not a precedent he wants to set because he knows one day there will be another repuke in thevWhite House.

[hopemountain]

101. your statement

does imply your perception. you are arguing the point of why the logan act has never been challenged. however, if one decides to parse semantics as a form of argument and to support one's view, one must be better at discerning the exact wording as well as the understanding and response of the opposite party. otherwise, one boxes one's self into a corner - or perhaps even a rabbit hole. either way, the discussion is over.

[hack89]

102. ok. nt

[Botany]

18. As per the US Constitution ....

.... Foreign Policy and Diplomacy are powers granted to the executive branch.

This seems to me more like sediton then treason.

[former9thward]

38. No, the Constitution does not say that.

Foreign Policy is shared between the Executive branch and Congress. You may wish to read Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 of that document.

[Botany]

49. But the President and the Sec. of State should be "the face" of US Foreign Policy

Thanx for posting and I will try to do more reading on the subject .....
although not being a lawyer or a Constitutional Scholar I sometimes have problems
understanding the exact meanings of what is written in the US Constitution.

I did find this:

http://www.fpa.org/features/index.cfm?act=feature&announcement_id=45&show_sidebar=0

The Senate

The framers, suspicious of executive power, regarded Congress as the most “democratic” of the three branches. Congress’s power to tax and control government spending —the “power of the purse” —is possibly its most important. Although the President usually cannot spend money not appropriated by Congress, he has always been granted some latitude in emergencies.

The Constitution assigns the Senate a distinctive role in the foreign policy process—to advise the President in negotiating agreements, to consent to them once they have been signed, and to approve presidential appointments, including the Secretary of State, other high officials of the State Department, ambassadors and career foreign service officers. After the Vietnam War, Congress became more involved in foreign affairs; however, many now question the branch’s effectiveness as Presidents have found ways to circumvent requirements for Congress’ approval. President Obama’s military action in Libya, which controversially sidestepped the War Power’s Resolution, is just one example.

The President

Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. In most other governments (Britain’s and Germany’s, for example), the two functions are separate. As head of state, the President is, in effect, the personification of the U.S.: its visible image, its official voice and its primary representative to the outside world. As head of government, he formulates foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue the “national interests” of the U.S.

[former9thward]

69. Yes, they should be the face.

And that was probably the intent of the founders. But we live in a internet-television society now where all politicians want their face time. An example on our side was the trip Nancy Pelosi made to Syria in 2007 where she met with Assad. This trip was made despite the protests of Bush's State Department. The trip should not have been made but the genie is out of the bottle. Witness the trips every four years that Republican and Democratic candidates make to Israel where they meet with Israeli leaders.

[Enthusiast]

19. See, this is just as I said before.

Think the absolute worst of these creeps and you will be in the ball park.

Fake polls not withstanding, the American people do not want another war. Someone should also tell the American people that "boots on the ground" equals war. The Vietnam War went from a few boots on the ground to 58,000 American dead.

The Republican Party is the party of perpetual war. The Democratic Party ought to start making that distinction a priority.

[elleng]

21. They really are.

[George II]

22. When did republican congressmen and senators decide that they could conduct...

...foreign policy? This is getting disgusting and anti-American.

I would like to see Eric Holder, before he leaves office, file charges against each and every one of these traitors.

[GummyBearz]

75. I'm sure he will

Right after he gets the last of the whistle blowers thrown in jail. Gotta keep his priorities strait

[Buzz Clik]

33. Holy shit.

There are laws about this stuff. God, I hope someone gets prosecuted.

[hack89]

39. Not really.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is the usual Fri ton when power is split in DC.

[Dr. Strange]

36. We need a petition to have the FCC take away Congress' powers.

[Fumesucker]

40. Good point..

[COLGATE4]

46. HEAR! HEAR!

[L0oniX]

41. Hillary will also have us in a war with Iran.

[Buzz Clik]

57. Not a chance.

It's unlikely a Republican would, either.

But your divisive comment is noted.

[JoePhilly]

60. Common wisdom on DU said Obama would too.

[Scootaloo]

78. References? n/t

[MynameisBlarney]

42. Every last one of these anti-American fuckstick traitors

Needs to get rounded up and tried for treason.

[liberalhistorian]

43. Fucking goddamned racist

treasonous America-hating party first-country last traitors. Of all the fucking gall, even for them. And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts my own wingnut racist dipshit incompetent, inept, hate-filled federal reps are among them.

[world wide wally]

52. I will be surprised if even 1 million people ever even hear about this... And the it will be

maybe once in passing.

[leftynyc]

53. No - not treason

You would think by now that ALL DUers would understand what treason is and is not but no - still batting this term around ignorant as to what it means. It's embarrassing.

[CincyDem]

56. How does this look from Iran's perspective.

As much as we in this country like to demonize the Iranians as the big bad guys of the Middle East, it would be an error to think they are collectively "stupid people". How will this look from their perspective...

My hypothesis - they will see this "warning" for what it is...a cheap political ploy to speak to a narrowing (albeit vocal) internal constituency.

I'm sure the Iranians study US politics with the same focus as we study theirs. From that, they probably understand the demographics, the logjam practice, and the degree to which 47 is not a majority of 100. I'm sure there's a mullah or two in Iran preaching that no agreement will survive the political demise of those who sign it. Standard rhetoric in any international negotiation.

Net - the letter is a nice thing to hang out during a campaign but ultimately will have no impact on negotiations.

We'll see but this will come down to how much everyone in both the US and Iranian administrations want a deal to happen.

[Stonepounder]

58. Subversive? Qualified yes. Treason? Flat out NO. Sedition, Probably NO, but close. n/t

[Liberalynn]

59. It may not be treason under the law but it is reprehensible!

What's it's purpose other than to undermine a sitting duly elected U.S. President and undermine our country's reputation and credibility around the world? To come right out and say we don't intend to honor any agreement made by our political adversary? How can any other country take us at our word on anything then? Not to mention that their taunting of an enemy with what figuratively if not literally amounts to saying "we want a war with you" doesn't exactly give me confidence that the security of the U.S. and it's citizens are their first priority.

Again agreed it is not the legal definition of treason but is still dangerous and disgusting behavior on the part of the Repukes. I don't understand how anyone can defend them let alone vote for them, but that's JMHO.

[Botany]

62. I think it is closer to sedition

n/t

[TxVietVet]

63. A list of the treasonous bastards that signed the letter.

Here's a list of the warmongering pricks and bitches: Tom Cotton
David Perdue
Joni Ernst
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
Mitch McConnell
Marco Rubio
Roger Wicker
John Hoeven
Richard Shelby
Thom Tillis
Richard Burr
Steve Daines
Jeff Sessions
John Boozman
Cory Gardner
Shelley Moore Capito
Ron Johnson
Mark Kirk
James Lankford
Chuck Grassley
Roy Blunt
John Thune
Mike Enzi
Pat Toomey
Bill Cassidy
John Barrasso
Ted Cruz
Jim Risch
Mike Crapo
Deb Fischer
Ben Sasse
Orrin Hatch
Dean Heller
Pat Roberts
John McCain
Rand Paul
Rob Portman
Lindsey Graham
Mike Rounds

[Stellar]

65. I wish they all would come up missing!

[workinclasszero]

67. Remember after 911 (which happened with republicans in charge)?

You didn't dare breath a fucking word against Dubya, why that was TREASON friends! At a time of war to say or do anything against the CinC was totally UN-AMERICAN!

Now look at what these traitorous republican scumballs do when a democratic president is in charge, in time of war as well!

[Dont call me Shirley]

71. Was this Cotton's gang initiation?

Can RICO laws be used somehow?

[Jack Rabbit]

73. As somebody points out above, it's an open letter

Therefore, there is nothing private the correspondence, eliminating a critical element of a crime that can be prosecuted under the Logan Act.

That just brings us back to what the Iranian foreign minister said today. It's propaganda. I suppose it might do more toward shaming Republicans to call it political theater.

Also, Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East in 2007 brought screams of "Logan Act violation" from congressional Republicans at the time, but nothing came of it. Perhaps the problem is that just as Democrats thought Mr. Bush unfit to conduct US foreign policy, so Republicans thing President Obama is also unfit for the same task. Democrats in 2007 thought Mr. Bush was too stupid while Republicans today think President Obama is too black.

[JonLP24]

74. I don't really like the word "treason" or when it is typically used

I don't view this as treason at all but if everything they say is likely to occur after Obama leaves office than what it is the point in writing the letter? It isn't going to stop Iran favoring less regulation regarding their own use of nuclear technology, I imagine it was quickly thrown in the trash but comes across as "enjoy it while it lasts" because we are coming for you first chance at it but I think they overestimate the likeliness of a Republican party success during a Presidential year election.

[malaise]

80. Looks like it's ReTHUGs who don't understand the Constitution

Lock them up

[Cha]

81. So.. they're betting the next Democratic President will renege?

[icymist]

83. What the Hell is this signaling to the rest of the world?

Idiots! Treasonous Idiots!

[Vattel]

84. The Republican senators are correct, which is too bad, because I trust Obama on Iran and not them.

[Gore1FL]

85. Correct to a degree.

They may have the power, but they won't use it without repercussions.

[butterfly77]

96. Kick&Recommended...

[Flatulo]

97. There certainly seems to be a strong RW push to confront Iran militarily.

While the theocratic government there has almost no redeeming qualities, I don't think they're suicidal. When they do go on to develop the capability to assemble a bomb, and they most certainly will - eventually - it will very much complicate matters in the ME, with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states responding with their own programs. But would Iran ever use it?

I don't think so.

Israel could survive a first strike from a crude decice, and would respond by completely annihilating Iran with its own arsenal. Even if Israel could not survive a first strike, I believe that the U.S. would simply not let such an act stand, and would destroy the Iranian civilization in response. The mullahs must know this.

They want a nuclear capability for the same reason everyone else does - to prevent an American invasion.

I do wish the Senate would butt out and let the Executive and State departments handle negotiations with Iran. But their action is simply in extremely poor taste, not criminal in the least.