And I thought I had seen it all...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Pelosi/Assad meeting was quite a bit different. She was there with a group of Congressional reps including a Republican to promote reform. There were other Republican reps meeting in Syria at the same time.

Different in "bi-partisan" form, but not in function. It too, was "criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts."

And as for the strange accusations that the letter to Iran is treason, how is it treason to explain the truth, openly without deceit, how our system works. Or as it is supposed to work?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Different in "bi-partisan" form, but not in function. It too, was "criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts."

And as for the strange accusations that the letter to Iran is treason, how is it treason to explain the truth, openly without deceit, how our system works. Or as it is supposed to work?

Efforts to "isolate", not efforts to reach a pending negotiated agreement with the P5+1 nations.

Big difference.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Efforts to "isolate", not efforts to reach a pending negotiated agreement with the P5+1 nations.

Big difference.

The current letter is an effort to reach a pending negotiated agreement as well. But it clarifies all the conditions and consequences of an agreement. It helps to ensure that the agreement is on solid ground.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The current letter is an effort to reach a pending negotiated agreement as well. But it clarifies all the conditions and consequences of an agreement. It helps to ensure that the agreement is on solid ground.

It doesn't clarify anything, it's an attempt to stir the pot.

This is pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ighten-authors

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It doesn't clarify anything, it's an attempt to stir the pot.

It clarifies how U.S. treaties are supposed to be made. If the truth stirs the pot, the pot has a problem.

This is pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ighten-authors

Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:

"governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

He doesn't seem to recognize that the President alone is not U.S. government. That Congress is a major part of that government, and is a responsible party in performing international obligations.

The article states also that "Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been 'mere executive agreements,' and not full treaties that received Senate ratification."

If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it can stand, so long as they don't later object, as an international "agreement." But not as indisputable "law." The first notable international "executive agreement" that was later made law, was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Even though he made the agreement with France without first getting senate ratification, the Senate afterward did ratify it. If it had officially decided not to ratify it, to strike it down, the deal would have been nullified. Nor do those type of agreements being made somehow rewrite the Constitution thereby nullifying Congresses role in ratifying treaties.

And, by the way, are we supposed to think that if the Iranian theocrats decide they don't like some treaty their country had signed on to that they wouldn't junk it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:

US education including his PhD in International Law & Policy. I'd wager he's got a pretty good understanding of what the US Government is.

Buck, he even went to prep school!

The article states also that "Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been 'mere executive agreements,' and not full treaties that received Senate ratification."

If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it can stand, so long as they don't later object, as an international "agreement." But not as indisputable "law." The first notable international "executive agreement" that was later made law, was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Even though he made the agreement with France without first getting senate ratification, the Senate afterward did ratify it. If it had officially decided not to ratify it, to strike it down, the deal would have been nullified. Nor do those type of agreements being made somehow rewrite the Constitution thereby nullifying Congresses role in ratifying treaties.

The "treaty" was ratified by the Senate long ago when we adopted the NPT. Any action against Iran today under the guise of UN Security Council Resolution isn't a new "treaty" and doesn't require Senate ratification.

And, by the way, are we supposed to think that if the Iranian theocrats decide they don't like some treaty their country had signed on to that they wouldn't junk it?

A strong resolution makes it the responsibility of the P5+1 to enforce the resolution. Sure, they can try and skirt the law, they've tried before, but this would add significant insurances not present before.