YIKES!!!!! ~ this is just wrong, and very very very dangerous, on too many levels to even count ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Declassified
Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last
Mar 8, 2015 10:07 PM EDT / By Josh Rogin

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.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval -- something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril,” Cotton told me.

The issue has already become part of the 2016 GOP campaign. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush came out against the negotiations in a speech at the Chicago Council last month. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry released a video criticizing the negotiations and calling for Congressional oversight. “An arms control agreement that excludes our Congress, damages our security and endangers our allies has to be reconsidered by any future president,” Perry said.

Republicans also have a new argument to make in asserting their role in the diplomatic process: Vice President Joe Biden similarly insisted -- in a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell -- on congressional approval for the Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear weapons with Russia in 2002, when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.

Still, Senators from both parties are united in an insistence that, at some point, the administration will need their buy-in for any nuclear deal with Iran to succeed. There’s no sign yet that Obama believes this -- or, if he does, that he plans to engage Congress in any meaningful way.

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

I canNOT wrap my mind around this ~ there MUST be some kind of restrictions and repercussions for this STUPIDLY DANGEROUS move by the GOP/TPers ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Republican Senators Write To Leaders Of Iran, Attempt To Sabotage Nuclear Deal
by Igor Volsky Posted on March 9, 2015 at 10:04 am

Forty-seven Republican senators are seeking to undermine the international negotiations aimed at containing Iran’s nuclear program with an open letter to the government of Iran, warning the Persian leaders that any deal they strike with the United States and its international partners will not last past the Obama administration.

Arguing that the Senate must ratify a treaty by “a two-thirds vote,” the senators argue that they “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 next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they warn.

The letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), was first reported by Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin.

The administration has sought to bypass Congressional approval of the deal, noting that Republicans — and some Democrats — have attempted to scuttle an agreement even before it is reached and are not working in good faith on an issue that would be a big win for the president. If a deal is in fact reached, Obama will use executive actions and waivers to suspend some sanctions, but will ultimately need to rely on Congress for more substantial relief.

Administration officials could also argue that Congress will have a hard time derailing any agreement that is reached by the United States and its international partners — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — particularly if the Iranians comply with nuclear inspections. Doing so could jeopardize America’s relationships with its allies and be seen as internationally provocative towards a military conflict with Iran.

The ongoing negotiations are seeking to limit Iran’s ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium, reduce its number of operating centrifuges and advanced centrifuges, and lower its low-enriched uranium stockpiles. The emerging agreement would allow Iran to retain some parts of its nuclear infrastructure but delay the “breakout” period for developing a weapon by more than a year.

Cotton, a freshman senator from Arkansas, has a long record in trying to scuttle any deal with Iran. In 2013, Cotton labeled an interim agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear program “humiliating defeat” for the U.S. and a “total victory” for Iran and pressed for additional sanctions. He pressed Congress to supply Israel with bunker buster bombs to aid Israel in a military strike against Iran and introduced legislation to punish the family members of people who violate Iran sanctions, a measure that he later withdrew after legal experts called it unconstitutional.

Iran and its negotiating partners must agree to broad principles on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities no later than March 24 and reach an agreement on the technical aspects of the deal by June 30.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/03/09/3631314/republican-senators-write-leaders-iran-attempt-sabatage-nuclear-deal/

What about the upcoming eight years of a Hillary administration?

Sedition anyone?

So Republicans (and maybe some Dems) are willing to start a war in order to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because Iran may use them to start a war.

A perfect example of pretzel logic.

I can always count on Steve Benen to snap things into perspective ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Playing with fire: Senate GOP tries to sabotage nuclear talks
03/09/15 12:45 PM
By Steve Benen

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.


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 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.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/playing-fire-senate-gop-tries-sabotage-nuclear-talks

Only 7 Republican Senators aren't chickenshits?

I simply canNOT shut off raging about this ~ here is a commentary from one of the links in Steve Benen's commentary above ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in this original ~ Sooz

The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran
By Jack Goldsmith / Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:55 AM

Josh Rogin reports that 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.” Here is the letter. Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

About the Author: Jack Goldsmith is the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches and writes about national security law, presidential power, cybersecurity, international law, internet law, foreign relations law, and conflict of laws. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003. Professor Goldsmith is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. ...

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/

Republicans are beginning to act as though Barack Obama isn’t even the president

By Paul Waldman March 9 at 12:16 PM

It’s safe to say that no president in modern times has had his legitimacy questioned by the opposition party as much as Barack Obama. But as his term in office enters its final phase, Republicans are embarking on an entirely new enterprise: They have decided that as long as he holds the office of the presidency, it’s no longer necessary to respect the office itself.

Is that a bit hyperbolic? Maybe. But this news is nothing short of stunning:

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.”

It’s one thing to criticize the administration’s actions, or try to impede them through the legislative process. But to directly communicate with a foreign power in order to undermine ongoing negotiations? That is appalling. And just imagine what those same Republicans would have said if Democratic senators had tried such a thing when George W. Bush was president.

The only direct precedent I can think of for this occurred in 1968, when as a presidential candidate Richard Nixon secretly communicated with the government of South Vietnam in an attempt to scuttle peace negotiations the Johnson administration was engaged in. It worked: those negotiations failed, and the war dragged on for another seven years. Many people are convinced that what Nixon did was an act of treason; at the very least it was a clear violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits American citizens from communicating with foreign governments to conduct their own foreign policy.

This move by Republicans is not quite at that level. As Dan Drezner wrote, “I don’t think an open letter from members of the legislative branch quite rises to Logan Act violations, but if there’s ever a trolling amendment to the Logan Act, this would qualify,” and at least it’s out in the open. But it makes clear that they believe that when they disagree with an administration policy, they can act as though Barack Obama isn’t even the president of the United States.

And it isn’t just in foreign affairs. In an op-ed last week in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Mitch McConnell urged states to refuse to comply with proposed rules on greenhouse gas emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency. Never mind that agency regulations like these have the force of law, and the Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions — if you don’t like the law, just act as though it doesn’t apply to you. “I can’t recall a majority leader calling on states to disobey the law,” said Barbara Boxer, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “and I’ve been here almost 24 years.”

The American political system runs according to a whole series of norms, many of which we don’t notice until they’re violated. For instance, the Speaker of the House can invite a foreign leader to address Congress for the sole purpose of criticizing the administration, and he can even do it without letting the White House know in advance. There’s no law against it. But doing so violates a norm not only of simple respect and courtesy, but one that says that the exercise of foreign policy belongs to the administration. Congress can advise, criticize, and legislate to shape it, but if they simply take it upon themselves to make their own foreign policy, they’ve gone too far.

But as has happened so many times before, Republicans seem to have concluded that there is one set of rules and norms that apply in ordinary times, and an entirely different set that applies when Barack Obama is the president. You no longer need to show the president even a modicum of respect. You can tell states to ignore the law. You can sabotage delicate negotiations with a hostile foreign power by communicating directly with that power.

I wonder what they’d say if you asked them whether it would be acceptable for Democrats to treat the next Republican president that way. My guess is that the question wouldn’t even make sense to them. After all, that person would be a Republican. So how could anyone even think of such a thing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/09/republicans-are-beginning-to-act-as-though-barack-obama-isnt-even-the-president/?hpid=z3

Unfortunately, the US has a history of not respecting treaties, be they ratified or not.

Another benefit of the Parliamentary system over Presidential Systems is the whole notion of a "Loyal Opposition".

But how stupid are these guys? I knew blind short-termism was endemic in the Corporate world, where its pretty disastrous, but to translate it to the political world is totally disastrous. And here they are undermining the Separation of Powers, which is probably the most fundamental principle in the US Constitution.

Sure , there's an election in 2016, but what about 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, ....

What happens when THEIR guy gets in????

The only reason these radicals have any traction is the weak-kneed Republicans. We have a similar situation in Canada where MPs outside the Harper clique are afraid to speak out. I just don't get what they're afraid of.

I'm still ragingly angry about this ~ and I just signed the We-The-People petition to have charges brought against the Idiot 47 ~ I hope you'll join me by signing the petition at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... t/NKQnpJS9 ~

Sooz

I signed the petition, although I don't expect anything to come of it.

The real problem, as I see it, is that these senators won't see or admit what they have done that is wrong and neither will too many citizens.

I signed 3 petitions.
Now I'm off the Xmas invitation list of Fox News.

But were any rules, regulations and/or laws broken?

No AK-47 for you from Santa.

Difficult to say.

There is the Logan Act...


§ 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

Apart from the fact that, as Oscar says, the U.S. isn't all that reliable when it comes to obeying its treaties (see the softwood lumber disputes under NAFTA for example), any treaty with Iran benefits the United States. Without a treaty, America's only realistic choice is letting Iran develop nuclear weapons pretty much unhindered. War, is not likely anymore than it was with North Korea when that country developed the bomb. Further, trying to increase the sanctions would likely be a non-starter with other nations if the U.S. simply refused to reach a reasonable settlement. In fact, just maintaining the existing sanctions would become problematic.

It's also possible the other five countries involved in the negotiations would carry on without the U.S. They did it in the case of the world court and Kyota.

The only thing the rightwingnuts are accomplishing is reducing USian influence in the world.

Re: Logan Act
I'm not sure this would be considered "private correspondence" unless the term means "unauthorised".

I went to bed last night angry about this and I woke up this morning angry about this ~ there is a LOT more to post ~ but these 2 factoids really piss me off: [1] Tom Cotton, the author of "the letter", has been a senator for all of 2 months now; and [2] immediately following the release of the GOP/TPer letter, Tom Cotton met with defense contractors ~

Sooz

Probably getting his new set of orders. The payoffs come once he retires or gets booted out.

I don't believe anyone was ever actually prosecuted for violating the act. Seems to me it would be a legal mess, having to prove someone was attempting to influence a foreign government and interfering with with ongoing relations.

John, I read somewhere [and I'll try to find it again] that violation of the Logan Act has only been prosecuted once since its inception ~ and that was in the [I think] 1800s ~

Sooz

Governments don't just run on laws, they also need unwritten conventions to be effective. Undermine them at your peril.