Senator Who Organized Letter To Iran Has Said He Wants To Sabotage Negotiations

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of "regime change," he argued.

Iran hawks in the House and Senate have long said that their aim is to help the White House strike a tougher deal with Iran. The administration and others, meanwhile, have charged that the hawks' true motivation is to undermine the talks entirely. Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail.

"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak," Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.

Cotton's bald admission would be less interesting had he not been the one to spearhead a Senate effort revealed Monday by Bloomberg View -- an open letter to Iran's leaders signed by 47 Republican senators. The letter explains the workings of the American government to the Iranian regime.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/tom-cotton-iran_n_6831328.html

[HERVEPA]

1. Treason, pure and simple

[BillZBubb]

6. It isn't treason. The constitution spells that out.

[alfredo]

33. 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere , is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The enemies being the conservatives in Iran.

[CanonRay]

38. I wish they'd charge this guy with treason

It might be a wake up call.

[alfredo]

46. I think Republicans want to strip the president of all power. If they can't remove him they can

"remove" him in place, making him a figurehead. It's a slow motion coup.

[Fred Sanders]

45. There are hard liners in Iran. Allying with them is indeed giving these enemies aid and comfort.

Iran politics is not one monolith the misinformed and brainwashed folks sincerely believe it is.

[a kennedy]

12. Who's going to call him on it.

THIS IS TREASON.....

[adieu]

17. DOJ?

Would be great if Eric Holder ends his term as AG by walking into the halls of Congress and arresting those who are making these overtures.

[leftynyc]

27. NO IT'S NOT

What enemy is he aiding and abetting? Which enemy is he collaborating with? You can scream in caps and put all the pissed off emoticons you want but it's still not treason.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. More evidence of our inequitable, dichotomous society.

[Nuh Uh]

35. I like Jane Fonda

But is Jane Fonda Republicans an appropriate rejoinder? Perhaps someone could photoshop Mitch McConnell atop an anti aircraft weapon and let people just draw their own conclusions.

[BillZBubb]

2. That is bordering on sedition.

It is the executive's responsibility to negotiate treaties. The Senate can then ratify or not. Maybe someone should explain our constitutional government to these right wing buffoons.

[MBS]

5. exactly.n/t

[arcane1]

11. Ironically, the text of the letter was a lesson to Iran on that very topic.

Republicans are not exactly smart

[ripcord]

19. The problem is tbat the Presdent is working on an agreement

Not a treaty, he doesn't want to give the republicans a chance to shoot it down.

[BillZBubb]

23. The republicans would always have a chance to shoot it down.

They can impose sanctions at any time if they've got the votes to do so.

[onenote]

37. Sending an "open letter" borders on sedition

But scuttling the negotiations by passing sanctions isn't.

Wrong. Neither is sedition. Neither is treason. Neither is a violation of the Logan Act.


What the Senate repubs who signed this "open letter" (not much different than standing up and making a speech) did was arrogant and an appalling breach of protocol. But if defying the President on a matter of public policy is treason or sedition or a breach of the Logan Act, than why was it okay -- and it definitely was okay in my opinion -- for the Democrats to basically tell Reagan to take his "strategy" of talking to South Africa and shove it by enacting sanctions over Reagan's veto.

[undiegrinder]

47. I'll take a stab here but ...

This is just a neophyte's attempt to answer -- NOT argue against -- the points you made. (And sorry if it's naive, I'm just trying to learn. Any corrections of factual errors gratefully accepted.)

Among the differences I see:

1. The Dems overrode Reagan by initially introducing a sanctions bill in the House (subsequently replaced by the Senate's Lugar bill). IOW, they stayed within both their congressional powers AND America's borders in their efforts to change Reagan's foreign policy.

The Repubs' letter, OTOH, seems like a totally unprecedented and even potentially dangerous "stunt" with two specific purposes: humiliating Obama and trying to create some pretext for America to start yet another totally unnecessary war in the Middle East.

2. The Dems didn't sidestep Reagan by communicating with -- much less issuing stern warnings to -- the South African government.

Yet the Repubs have directly addressed Iran's leadership with claims that seem designed only to complicate the long-ongoing negotiations and even muddling just who the Iranians should be negotiating with.

3. When the Lugar bill passed both House and Senate, Reagan vetoed it and his veto was then overridden by both houses of Congress -- a process characterized at the time as "an unprecedented congressional rebuff of Reagan on a major foreign policy issue."

Contrast that with the Repubs' rather (IMHO) condescending letter ("you may not fully understand our constitutional system"??) which is not merely "unprecedented" but in fact downright dangerous.

They're not only interjecting pointless, pie-in-the-sky problems which, they insist, Iran "should seriously consider as negotiations progress" ...

Far worse, despite the virtual certainty they do NOT know all the details, the Repubs are intentionally complicating some extremely delicate negotiations about an issue with huge and scary global ramifications.

It's hard to believe that doesn't break any laws. How can sacrificing the good of our country -- maybe even the entire world? -- just to try (yet AGAIN) to humiliate a political foe NOT be a CRIME??

[totodeinhere]

25. What is the difference between an agreement with a foriegn country and a treaty?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[CanonRay]

39. There's no "border" that I can see

It's treason, pure and simple.

[maddiemom]

52. Right. More technically sedition, rather than treason.

[magical thyme]

53. Iran already did explain it to them

in their response.

Went right over their heads

[Blue_Tires]

3. high treason

[Renew Deal]

4. I bet Mark Pryor wouldn't have sent such a letter

[lutefisk]

7. Republicans toying with treason is nothing new. Remember Iran, 1980?

Republican attempts to sabotage a Democratic president's deal with Iran are nothing new, however. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran....

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.

This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."

truth-out.org LINK

[undiegrinder]

48. Totally agree, and yet ...

Both those examples were entirely secretive.

But while the purpose of this letter is exactly the same, it's SO unapologetically blatant and brazen it seems like the Repubs have deluded themselves into believing they're now untouchable.

[SpankMe]

8. And if the tables were turned?

If a Democratic Senate did this to a sitting Republican president, can you imagine the squealing and accusations of treason that would be blasting out of these guys?

Some on our side are calling this treason as well, but few Dems in Congress are pursuing this with anything serious. Republicans would be calling for arrests, removals from office - it would be amazing.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

36. IOKIYR NOt OK with me though, only OK with people who are NOT patriots.

[DhhD]

9. GOP, Party of War or War Party n/t

[muntrv]

10. If there is a war with Iran, draft Republicans.

[cui bono]

13. Especially elected Republicans. n/t

[JonLP24]

14. It is pathetic how much attention is being paid to this

Regime change? There are better candidates than Iran.

That state ownership over something like oil really ticks of big oil which started all this talk of stopping Iran at all costs from acquiring a nuke as if they are last the ones by far you'd want to acquire a nuclear. It was all originally show, I don't know if they really give a rats ass about nukes I have no idea why they would oppose him so much but Republicans appear to want to continue as portraying a pretty bad government much worse than it really is when in reality the just want to liberate the oil fields. Obama could be tricking Iran for all they knew but that's just speculating at-this-time.

It is really hard to figure out why the US is recently moving in this direction but they haven't completely abandoned treating countries unfairly if they don't completely open up their oil & gas production to the multinationals. Iran sits on a lot of oil so that can never been ignored into why US does anything at all regarding Iran.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Yes, siree. Tom Cotton is a war hawk and his claim to fame was his service

in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.meettomcotton.com/

Cotton rightfully highlights his military background. Every Arkansan should thank him for his service.

The question, though, is what’s next.

Cotton thinks we need to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely and invest more of our tax dollars into Afghanistan’s development. He wants to cut funding for our public schools and our roads but invest more of our tax dollars in Afghanistan’s schools and roads.

Cotton also wants to commit us to the civil war that is happening in Syria; he has suggested that the U.S. military be directly involved, which would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

18. Republicans in league with Bibi and not the POTUS. Rand Paul and all.

It's that simple.

[pampango]

20. Republicans are never big on negotiating solutions to international issues. They prefer bombing or

invading to prove their 'toughness'.

[Madmiddle]

21. Holder and the WH need to jump on this.

This is treason.

[RussBLib]

22. if history is any guide

our elected Dems won't bother to holler about it because they have no spine or testicles.

[pinto]

24. An embarassment, to say the least, both here and abroad.

Incredibly petty on an international stage. And a complete disregard to consequences, "unintended" or "very much intended".

[slumcamper]

32. DINNNNNNNG! You hit the bell.

PETTY. That's exactly what it is! Good call.

You win a cigar.

[vkkv]

26. Apparently it is the GOP who doesn't know how the U.S. Gov't works!

And they're teaching it to other nations?

Talk about "overreach"!

Yikes!

[SteveG]

28. Attempting to interfere with a Presidents negotiations is Unconstitutional and illegal

Here is the Logan Act, first enacted in 1799

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.
18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

The SCOTUS has also weighed in on the topic

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
"The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution."

[Ed Suspicious]

31. That looks pretty well clear cut. Thanks for the education.

[turbinetree]

29. LOGAN ACT/ Tom Cotton

"Logan Act

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the arrest and deportation of Aliens and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.

The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:

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."

[sdfernando]

30. Ughhh!!!

Don't these imbeciles realize that forcing regime change in Iran is the whole reason we are in this mess now! Don't any of these repugnant whack-jobs ever learn anything!

[erronis]

34. I smell some rats. Ollie ones, Koch ones, Rove ones

None of them are known to be exactly American patriots. Unless you call wearing a $3 lapel button of a flag makes you a patriot.

Under Washington D.C. there runs a putrid little creek (Tiber, which was clean until the filth of Capitol Hill started to flow therein.) I'm pretty sure these finer "gents" of the slimy party meet down there to concoct their noxious brews. Well, it might include a few drafts/etc. at the local bars too.

What makes my blood boil more than their own personal rapaciousness, is the fact that they are laughing at everyone else in the US that is a good citizen. They lie awake thinking about how to stick it to somebody. How to maximize their coffers. How to add a line to their little RW portfolios. Since they can't do something productive, why not be a lobbyist?

[rladdi]

40. I now wonder if Tom Cotton was a traitor was serving in the military. Has anyone investigated his

background while serving. BTW. his family get millions in subidies in farm aid. But he voted to eliminate food stamps. This is the GOP intelligence for us to think about. The GOP is stealing billions from the tax payers, in salaries, benefits and different kinds of aid.

[hollowdweller]

41. The GOP congress of the time did not abide by Clinton's agreement with North Korea either.

We all know how that worked out.

[pansypoo53219]

43. sedition. say it. SAY IT!

[wildbilln864]

44. arrest that son of a gun! n/t

[LynnTTT]

49. Also tried to apply blood ties to imprison...

As a Rep, didn't Cotton try to pass a bill en 2013 extending punishment to
third degree" family members? relating to those found guilty of violating sanctions, he wanted to also punish children, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. They didn't have to have any knowledge of the action, just be related . He withdrew it, BTY, it's unconstitutional. The guy is nuts . I don't care if he served in Iraq and was a graduate of Harvard.

[maindawg]

50. He should be censured

Along with every person who signed his letter.

[riversedge]

51. @SenTomCotton: "Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women"

Cotton is a jerk from the start!!


@SenTomCotton: "Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women" R, AR,

[guss]

54. Treason

Constitutionally they say this isn't treason.
Because we have to be at war for it to be treason. To undermined the interests of the United States and the President of the United States when we at war.
But we At War!
War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on poverty, We are in a constant state of war.
They undermined, to destroy the Capitol and Credibility of the country, to deal with and fight those wars.
Promoting of their own office and handlers.
They are Traitors and should be shamed and treated as people who would weaken America for personal gains thru self profit. Give us instead... stability and providing security to the American people to with the office they were elected for.