Republicans shit on diplomacy with Iran and arguably break t

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... lear-talks

In a practical sense, when congressional Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a joint-session address, it was part of a larger sabotage campaign. GOP lawmakers, without so much as a hint of embarrassment, are openly trying to derail international diplomatic talks with Iran, and Republicans had no qualms about partnering with a foreign government to undermine American foreign policy.

The GOP gambit arguably marked a new low. But after hitting the bottom of the barrel, Republicans dug a hole and fell just a little further.
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. […]

“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.”
Josh Rogin’s report makes clear that the signatories “hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval … the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice” about striking a deal with Americans and our negotiating partners.

The letter was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a right-wing freshman who has spent months bragging about his hopes of destroying any diplomatic agreement intended to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The list of the 47 GOP senators who signed on to the letter is online here. Note, that list features several presidential hopefuls, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. (Only seven Senate Republicans decided not to endorse the letter: Lamar Alexander, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, and Lisa Murkowski.)

Norm Ornstein noted this morning that he’s “flabbergasted” by the “astonishing breach of conduct.” That’s clearly the appropriate response. But I’m also struck by how dangerous the Republicans’ conduct is.

As we discussed back in January, when the broader sabotage campaign came into focus, there is no real precedent for this in the American tradition. The U.S. system just isn’t supposed to work this way – because it can’t. Max Fisher explained that we’re looking at “a very real problem for American foreign policy.”
The Supreme Court has codified into law the idea that only the president is allowed to make foreign policy, and not Congress, because if there are two branches of government setting foreign policy then America effectively has two foreign policies.

The idea is that the US government needs to be a single unified entity on the world stage in order to conduct effective foreign policy. Letting the president and Congress independently set their own foreign policies would lead to chaos. It would be extremely confusing for foreign leaders, and foreign publics, who don’t always understand how domestic American politics work, and could very easily misread which of the two branches is actually setting the agenda.
The United States and our allies have reached a delicate stage of diplomacy on a key issue, but as far as congressional Republicans are concerned, the United States isn’t really at the negotiating table at all – the Obama administration is. Republican lawmakers not only disapprove of the process, they also feel justified conducting their own parallel, freelance foreign policy, which includes partnering with foreign governments and sending a message to the very rival the United States and our allies are negotiating with.

In other words, for the first time anyone can remember, we’re watching American elected officials brazenly trying to sabotage American foreign policy.

Under the circumstances, it’s no longer ridiculous to wonder whether GOP lawmakers are violating the Logan Act.

As for the GOP’s legal argument to Tehran, Jack Goldsmith added, “It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.”

Unfortunately, that’s not the only thing they fail to understand. They seem equally confused about propriety, U.S. protocols, and how American foreign policy is supposed to work.

Worthless pieces of dog shit. Shit like this makes me honestly believe that another civil war is a serious possibility.

[Elheru Aran]

So Lindsey Graham doesn't know how to e-mail, but he's pretty good at snail-mail, or at least signing his name.

Because the majority of Republicans in the US Senate have sent a note to the Iranian government. Official? Sure, it's on their letterhead. Legal? Now that's a lot more iffy. But I'll let you read and judge.

Here's the Daily Banter with a picture of the letter so you can read it for yourself.

Washington (CNN)

President Barack Obama slammed Republican senators who penned a letter attempting to warn Iran that any pending nuclear agreement will face their scrutiny, claiming they were aligning themselves with Iranian "hard-liners."

"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk.

"I think what we're going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we're going to get a deal or not. Once we do, if we do, we'll be able to make the case to the American people, and I'm confident we'll be able to implement it," Obama said.

Nearly every Senate Republican has signed on to an open letter to Iran's leaders warning that without their approval, any Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama will be null and void after he leaves office.

But a top Iranian negotiator and Democrats slammed the letter, calling it a purposeful attempt to undermine the delicate negotiations as they reach a pivotal deadline later this month.

"We believe this letter has no legal value and is indeed just a propaganda ploy," said Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in a statement provided to and translated by CNN. "Whats more, while the negotiations have not yet borne fruit and there no agreement yet, pressure groups in the U.S. are so worried that they are using extraordinary measures to prove that they, just like Netanyahu oppose any kind of agreement."

The letter, authored by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, states that the Constitution requires any international treaty to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement." It also notes that presidents are barred from serving more than two terms in office and that the Obama administration ends in 2017.

"What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the senators write. "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."

The letter is signed by 47 Republican senators, including every member of GOP leadership and all four the the chamber's potential presidential contenders: Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

Sens. Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins and Bob Corker didn't sign the letter. Murkowski and Coats are the only two up for reelection, and Coats is rumored to be considering retirement.

Flake's spokeswoman Bronwyn Lance Chester said the senator agreed with the spirit of the letter, but abstained from signing it because he did not "believe the letter was necessary."

Corker, who's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been pushing a bill to require congressional review of any deal, indicated that measure was his most pressing concern.

"As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Corker's focus is on getting a veto-proof majority to support his bipartisan bill for congressional review of any comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran," an aide said.

And Alexander spokesman Jim Jeffries said that the senator "has expressed his position by agreeing to cosponsor Sen. Corker's legislation."

Speaking on Fox and Friends on Monday morning, Cotton again insisted that congressional approval is necessary for any deal to last.

"Any deal that is not approved by the Congress won't be accepted by the Congress now or in the future," he said, adding that he hopes more lawmakers and presidential candidates sign on.

But he indicated that congressional approval might be tough to get, if the developing contours of the deal remain intact.

The Arkansas Republican said that the terms of the deal, including Iran's robust uranium enrichment capability and the possibility of a sunset in as little as ten years, make it "unacceptable, dangerous to the United States, and dangerous to the world."

Cotton appears to have slightly flubbed the wording on treaty ratification, however — according to a 2001 Congressional Research Service Report, "it is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States."

The Constitution does stipulate that the Senate plays a role in that process, however, by taking up a "resolution of ratification" that must pass with a two-thirds majority.

Zarif also claimed the GOP senators were ignorant of their own Constitution.

"This proves that [the senators] are not only strangers to the norms of international rights and regulations, but they also are not familiar with the intricate details of their own Constitution regarding the authority of the President of the United States in executing foreign policy," he said.

Despite the imprecise wording, the letter is intended to pressure the Obama administration to give Congress final approval over the developing deal with Iran over its nuclear program. A bipartisan group of senators is currently working to usher a bill to do just that through the Senate, but Democrats have said they won't move forward with the measure until the first deadline for the talks to bear fruit, at the end of this month.

The warning could have the added effect of further complicating already delicate talks between the two nations aimed at reigning in Iran's nuclear program.

Democrats on Monday accused Republicans of attempting to do just that, with White House press secretary Josh Earnest calling the letter a "continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the President's ability to conduct foreign policy."

"To essentially throw sand in the gears here is not helpful, and is not, frankly, the role our founding fathers envisioned for Congress to play when it comes to our foreign policy," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disparaged Cotton's letter on the Senate floor, saying it was aimed at "sabotaging" the Iran talks.

"This letter is a hard slap not only in the face the United States, but our allies," Reid said, as Cotton -- who happened to be presiding over the Senate -- looked on. "This is not a time to undermine the commander in chief purely out of spite."

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin agreed, calling it a "cynical effort by Republican senators to undermine sensitive international negotiations" in a statement.

"It weakens America's hand and highlights our political divisions to the rest of the world," he said.

"Understand that if these negotiations fail, a military response to Iran developing their nuclear capability becomes more likely," Durbin said. "These Republican senators should think twice about whether their political stunt is worth the threat of another war in the Middle East.

I love the irony of the Iranian Foreign Minister pointing out the Republicans' ignoring their own Constitution. But it's a valid point, and illustrates just how resolutely the Republicans are determined to foil that dastardly Obama's efforts to secure peace in the Middle East. At this point, it's blatantly a matter of doctrine, and nothing to do with how the real world works at all...

[Elheru Aran]

Fuck! Ninja'd! Cursed Romulan cloaks!

Yeah, if someone could just merge the two threads or something...

[General Zod]

I think 47 senators just submitted their names to an impeachment hearing.

[The Romulan Republic]

If only that would happen. But do you see the Republicans who dominate both houses of Congress voting to impeach them or Obama having the balls to push for it?

[Crossroads Inc.]

The question is now put forth..

Just how FAR do the republicans have to go before they will actually be held accountable for fcking America like this?

[Gandalf]

Considering a significant portion of their voter base would see it a valiant patriotic something or other in defiance of a weak president, they would have to go pretty far.

[The Romulan Republic]

And honestly, what would happen if Obama tried to arrest them for breaking the law? My guess is Republican protests across the country, assassination attempts, and an immediate attempt to impeach Obama.

[Elheru Aran]

Nothing quite that drastic... mostly because I doubt Obama would be fool enough to try anything that extreme. He's not going to arrest them; he'll just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. I think he's passed into a mindset where he's given up on getting anything positive out of Congress and is not even going to try to touch them one way or another. Certainly he'll make gestures where he talks to them and asks them to do something, but frankly, there's no way to expect a Republican majority to do *anything* that he wants them to.

So, no, he won't try to arrest them. He'll let them keep trying to do whatever they can to harm him while staying out of their reach. Sooner or later, they'll make enough fools of themselves that there will be consequences for them... or they'll resign into lucrative jobs consulting on Fox News.

[Elheru Aran]

As I got ninja'd by Romulan Republic (damn those cloaks again), if someone could delete this or merge the above with the other thread... thanks...

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I don't think Obama will try to arrest them. He's short on guts when it comes to confronting these people. I was speculating as to what might happen if Obama did try to have them arrested.

[Edi]

Duplicate threads merged. If Democrats pulled as stunt like this on a Republican president, Republicans would be calling for their blood to run on the streets.

[Irbis]

That would be hardly their first initiative to hijack foreign policy recently. In just last month, they also called for immediate arming of Ukraine going both against Obama and EU, and for creation of new state in Iraq:

US Senators Propose For A “Separate Province For Christians In Iraq”

US senators propose establishment of a province for Christians in Nineveh Plains of Iraq

According to media reports, the wretched situation of affliction experienced by Christians and other minorities forced to flee from Nineveh Plain has raised “serious concern”, that the US State Department is urged to “support the government of Iraqi’s establishment of the Nineveh Plains administrative province” and provide “direct support programs designed to assist vulnerable Iraqi ethnic and religious minorities”.

A petition written by 17 US Senators to the Secretary of State, John Kerry contained the feasible proposals including direct intervention on behalf of the US Government on the Iraqi institutions in order to push them to increase the levels of institutional and security protection of the native Christian communities.

To boot, the Senators also referred to law FY15 for the effective channelling of the activities of National Defence and to allow direct supplies in favour of the security forces committed to protecting Iraq’s minority communities. This letter was written on January 27, 2015, in which the petitioners also mention Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution currently in force, which guarantees the protection and the legal regulation of “administrative, political, cultural and educational rights of different nationalities, including Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians and all the other components”.

That was in January. In just one stroke, they managed to at once piss off ISIS (for religious reasons), Iraqi Shiites (who rule the country) and Kurds, possibly last solid US ally in Middle East (as Nineveh Plains are located deeply within territory they claim, and they would like to annex it for strategical reasons). The bulldozing of Assyrian relics described in previous threads was quite likely to be at least in part a reply to this call, sadly, as ISIS left them alone for months beforehand.

You know, as much as I sympathise with oppressed peoples and would likely support giving them autonomy and security, doing so in a manner that painted gigantic bullseye on them while giving them absolutely nothing besides verbal support has to be one of the most evil, cynic ways of buying political capital with blood

As for the Iran talks, this is doubly galling seeing Iran invested a lot of money and manpower into propping Iraqi government against ISIS offensive, and they will probably feel doubly betrayed now as I'd expect them to use it as an argument for being responsible state during negotiations with USA. At this rate, US senate will make whole Middle East unwilling to talk with Americans on everything.

[Gaidin]

I think 47 senators just submitted their names to an impeachment hearing.

For what, saying they won't support this? I thought that was a Senator's prerogative when it came to something like a treaty, which is what it would take to guarantee out and out support past Obama's term. Or do they only just get to vote no. I just want to know how far up their legs we want to cut their ability to speak in front of a camera for whatever dramatic reasons. You're not going to get a lot out of the President because whatever their reason for saying no, the Senators get to say no.

[Welf]

American politics have reached a new level of dysfunctional. This isn't yet polish commonwealth, but it reminds me of foreign politics in the late German Empire where Kaiser, Chancellor and foreign ministry kept each other in the dark and all did their own stuff.
This would be much funnier if Iran was closer to the USA than Europe -_-

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

American politics have reached a new level of dysfunctional. This isn't yet polish commonwealth, but it reminds me of foreign politics in the late German Empire where Kaiser, Chancellor and foreign ministry kept each other in the dark and all did their own stuff.
This would be much funnier if Iran was closer to the USA than Europe -_-

If Iran were in the Americas, they'd be invaded by now.

[Flagg]

Duplicate threads merged. If Democrats pulled as stunt like this on a Republican president, Republicans would be calling for their blood to run on the streets.

And they would be right to do so, since it may not fit the letter, but it sure as hell fits the spirit of treason. But it's far fetched to imagine even a spined Obama DOJ would go after them for the blatant violation of the Logan Act, pie in they sky for them to nail them for sedition, and Steven Hawking tap dancing to think they'd even be mentioned in the same speech as the word treason.

[The Romulan Republic]

As much as I dislike this, I don't see how its treason based on what I know of it, and treason is not a word that should be used lightly, especially towards political opponents of the President.

And your support for the idea of calling for Republican "...blood to run on the streets." is disgusting.

I fear a civil war. I have no respect for those, Left or Right, who want one.

Edit: I may sound like an alarmist, but there's enough insanity from the Right and the Left and enough historical examples of great countries collapsing to persuade me not to be complacent about America's future stability.

[Terralthra]

I think 47 senators just submitted their names to an impeachment hearing.

For what, saying they won't support this? I thought that was a Senator's prerogative when it came to something like a treaty, which is what it would take to guarantee out and out support past Obama's term. Or do they only just get to vote no. I just want to know how far up their legs we want to cut their ability to speak in front of a camera for whatever dramatic reasons. You're not going to get a lot out of the President because whatever their reason for saying no, the Senators get to say no.

You realize that what those 47 Senators did is illegal in the US, and has been for 200+ years, right?

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.

The Senators are perfectly legitimate in airing their disagreement with a potential nuclear power/armament treaty with Iran on TV, on the Senate floor, or anywhere else they'd like. What they may not do is send letters to the Foreign Minister of another government to try to influence or sabotage foreign policy. That's literally exactly what they did.

[Gaidin]

The Senators are perfectly legitimate in airing their disagreement with a potential nuclear power/armament treaty with Iran on TV, on the Senate floor, or anywhere else they'd like. What they may not do is send letters to the Foreign Minister of another government to try to influence or sabotage foreign policy. That's literally exactly what they did.

Not really been a relevant law in today's political climate and you know it. Be realistic. Forgetting the idea of an administration that would charge them, there's also the idea of, you know, getting it through all the stages of the trial. I think while many people would see some relevance to saying the citizens can't interfere with negotiations, telling Senators they can't write an open letter regarding negotiations is, shall we say, a stretch. Given Senators have some role at some point in the final step in the process.

[Thanas]

The Iranian response to the letter is gold

ICYMI my response. In English

(love the english dig)

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations."

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."

DAAAAAAMN.

[Metahive]

Hey, they already got away with shit like this when Kissinger and Nixon sabotaged LBJ's peace talks with North Vietnam and even squeezed a presidency out of it so is it a wonder they try again? Of course, both Kissinger and Nixon were at least somewhat subtle when they did their scheme but qualities like that have become unknonwn to the modern Homo Republicanus Noxius Teabaggeri.

[FTeik]

"Quid licet Jovi, non licet bovi." - the Iranian Foreign Secretary is right on principle, but there is no one, who will (and can) prevent the US from shitting on international law, if they so please.

[Borgholio]

The Iranian response to the letter is gold

I was laughing my ass off. Having Iranians be more correct in interpreting our own laws than the Republicans is comedy gold. Sadly, many in the GOP are too dumb to realize it.

[Flagg]

As much as I dislike this, I don't see how its treason based on what I know of it, and treason is not a word that should be used lightly, especially towards political opponents of the President.

And your support for the idea of calling for Republican "...blood to run on the streets." is disgusting.

I fear a civil war. I have no respect for those, Left or Right, who want one.

Edit: I may sound like an alarmist, but there's enough insanity from the Right and the Left and enough historical examples of great countries collapsing to persuade me not to be complacent about America's future stability.

Hey, fuckface where did I call for Republican blood to run on the streets? Oh, I didn't? I just agreed that if the situation were reversed and Republicans were livid enough to call for such a thing they would be right in doing so. So put your fucking hair out (assuming your scalp isn't a charred ruin considering that you again did your usual of lighting your empty head on fire and running around in circles like a stupid frightened child). And considering the republican conduct concerning this issue, I'll say it fits the spirit of treason if I fucking want to, especially when I go out of my way to say it's not legally the case. So I guess what I'm getting at is... Go fuck yourself with an old rusty chainsaw and don't come back until you can back up your golden mean horseshit about the left even being close to as insane as the right in this shitshow called America to even be mentioned. Because if you can find any instance of mass lawbreaking on the scale and in the sheer numbers on the part of the modern Democratic Party, I will suck your dick.