I'd love to see the TREASON!!!! crowd clarify why this isn't worse

[FBaggins]

NOTE - No... I'm in no way saying that what they did was appropriate or wise... nor am I saying that the ten Democrats who signed the letter below were guilty of anything (even bad policy).

I do believe that since we're talking about a nuclear weapons agreement with multiple foreign powers... the President should be negotiating a treaty that the Senate should vote on.

This is from 1984:

Dear Comandante:

We address this letter to you in a spirit of hopefulness and good will.

As Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, we regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua.

We want to commend you and the members of your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country. The Nicaraguan people have not had the opportunity to participate in a genuinely free election for over 50 years. We support your decision to schedule elections this year, to reduce press censorship, and to allow greater freedom of assembly for political parties. Finally, we recognize that you have taken these steps in the midst of ongoing military hostilities on the borders of Nicaragua.

We write with the hope that the initial steps you have taken will be followed by others designed to guarantee a fully open and democratic electoral process. We note that some who have become exiles from Nicaragua have expressed a willingness to return to participate in the elections, if assurances are provided that their security will be protected, and their political rights recognized. Among these exiles are some who have taken up arms against your government, and who have stated their willingness to lay down those arms to participate in a truly democratic process.

If this were to occur, the prospects for peace and stability throughout Central America would be dramatically enhanced. Those responsible for supporting violence against your government, and for obstructing serious negotiations for broad political participation in El Salvador would have far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.

We believe that you have it in your power to establish an example for Central America that can be of enormous historical importance. For this to occur, you have only to lend real force and meaning to concepts your leadership has already endorsed concerning the rules by which political parties may compete openly and equitably for political power.

A decision on your part to provide these reasonable assurances and conduct truly free and open elections would significantly improve the prospect of better relations between our two countries and significantly strengthen the hands of those in our country who desire better relations based upon true equality, self-determination and mutual good will.

We reaffirm to you our continuing respect and friendship for the Nicaraguan people, and pledge our willingness to discuss these or other matters of concern with you or officials of your government at any time. Very sincerely yours,

Here's the NYTimes reporting at the time - http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html

Let's look at some differences:

* The 2015 letter was a public statement (it's really a press release targeted at the administration). The 1984 letter was not. the opposition released it a month later.

* The 2015 letter doesn't actually negotiate any position. They aren't asking for certain concessions or insisting on specific wording. They merely (correctly except for a technicality) outline what types of international agreements are binding on future administrations and which are not. It doesn't actually oppose any policy or proposal or negotiating position. The 1984 letter directly opposes the then-current foreign policy and recommends specific actions that Ortega should take to make it easier on them to oppose the policies more successfully. It then offers further direct negotiations... and the President isn't even mentioned.

* The 2015 letter exists in the context of a foreign power that is believed to be developing a nuclear capability... but with which there is no armed conflict. The 1984 letter occurred during an actual armed conflict where (right or wrong), the US was supporting the other side.

* The 2015 letter is written by Senators - who at least have a constitutional role in foreign policy matters. The 1984 letter was written by ten members of the House.

So go ahead... tell me why the current letter is treason, but the one from 1984 was ok.

Oh... but before you do. Re-read that NYTimes piece and try not to sound too much like Newt Gingrich.

[Bonobo]

1. Reccing for asking a damned good and interesting question.

Questions like this keep us honest and different than the opposing side.

[NuclearDem]

2. Because our side did it, which makes it okey dokey.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Five nations are negotiating an international agreement, with the UN. Not a treaty. Fail.

Advise and consent on international agreements.

Ratification for only treaties. These 5+1 talks will not result in a "treaty".

Which is why the GOP is pushing for a law turning international agreements into "treaties", pulling the rug from under one hundred years of agreements.

[FBaggins]

6. That's incorrect.

It's seven nations... and they aren't "negotiating... with the UN".

Not that either would make the slightest bit of difference.

Not a treaty

That was presumably the point of the letter... thanks. Executive agreements are not treaties, and they do not bind the US... just the current administration... unless agreed to by the Senate or Congress.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Those are GOP talking points fully repudiated by the White House. And you seem to forget that the

GOP has also:

2) jettisoned decades of diplomatic protocol inviting a foreign leader to Congress to torpedo the talks

3) trying to pass a law turning an agreement into a treaty....

You have to look at the big picture, not cherry pick as the GOP does.

I agree with the White House.

Not legally treason, true, the letter was a public relations exercise for domestic consumption, it is being treated as comedy in Iran....it IS sedition.

[Rex]

12. Next he's going to pretend ex agreements are not binding both countries into a policy agreement.

The attempts to say HEY LOOK THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME...remember that one! Because in a week or two he will be yelling at anyone that says JUST that.

You are totally right. FAIL.

[Fred Sanders]

13. According to the very wrong poster all the foreign agreements, hundreds over the years, do not bind the next President.

Yikes!

[Rex]

15. Yikes!

So it is a clean slate every 4 years! No wonder our system of government is so screwed up!

[Fred Sanders]

16. Can you imagine....all agreements are immediately subject to termination..what foreign nation would negotiate one?

[Rex]

18. Yeah every four years you have to hope the new POTUS doesn't go all willy nilly on your ass!

Policy shmalicy! Stuff never meant anything anyhow to anyone. Just silly numbers and words on a page.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Watching Stewart...Raygun signed 1500 international executive agreements......

[TheKentuckian]

64. That is exactly the case if the agreement doesn't pass both houses or isn't ratified be the Senate.

What is the legal basis of your counter argument here?

Executive agreements are no more binding than Executive Orders, arguably even less so because EO's are interpretive guidelines of how the executive will execute the law passed by Congress not law themselves.

[Fred Sanders]

71. This is a multi-nation agreement subject to approval by the UN Security Council and enforced by

a world recognized nuclear inspection and enforcement agency, so it is not anything like an executive order.

Yet, it is not a treaty as defined in the Constitution. The White House and Executive Branch interpretation has NEVER been questioned before, save the very rarest of ocassions only arguably, since time began.

Never questioned....until a few days ago....and then try to place the whole thing in topical context....

Of course far too many navel-gazing Americans do not see much beyond the tip of a military spear.

Explaining things requires peeling back SO many layers.

[TheKentuckian]

75. What does the number of nations or US involvement have to do with the agreement being binding on

future administrations?

The question is not about the value of the agreement or its credibility but of how such things are binding when not approved by Congress either by a majority in both houses as law or through the ratification process in the Senate.

Never questioned? What do you mean? The only recent question of how the law works is yours asserting that Executive agreements are binding on future (or even the present administration really, nothing stops them from changing their mind if they elect either) administrations seeing how such things are not US law.

My best guess is you are conflating agreements passed by a majority both houses (like say a NAFTA) with treaties that require 2/3 of the Senate so are generally dodged despite many such agreements are of such scope that it is clearly evading constitutional muster, these Executive Agreements have zero force of law but passed agreements would be binding until override by the same means.

The Executive can't make actual law. The process cannot be described because it doesn't exist not because of onion layers.

[TheKentuckian]

76. All agreements are not equal, Fred. The only binding ones go through Congress

either by simple majority in both houses for a binding agreement OR by a completely separate process called a treaty which requires 2/3's of the Senate that is seldom used now but should be for the NAFTA level agreements that make serious changes in legal structure.

You are making all agreements equal under the law and they just aren't.

[Fred Sanders]

77. You are purposely ignoring seventy plus years of foreign policy precedent, just like the Republicans are.

“‘Politics stops at the water’s edge,’”Senator Stabenow quoted Vandenberg. “I can only imagine what senator Vandenberg would say if he were alive today,” she said, about Republicans who had “decided to throw away 70 years of wisdom and stand on the side of the ayatollahs”.

That is the Democratic Party position, not throwing away 70 years of bi-partisan agreement...with which you seem to agree.

[TheKentuckian]

79. That statement does not support your assertion nor does it have anything to do with me agreeing with

Stabenow's comment.

What precedent are you claiming that I am ignoring?
Now you appear to be conflating an axiom (which is of extremely dubious truth over the years and at bare minimum was thrown away by Republicans years ago already in different but even shittier ways) by a Senator talking about the 47 sending the letter at all under the principles of speaking with with one voice with how laws work on binding agreements.

Why are you arguing this point? Why are you pretending that agreements not approved by Congress either as binding agreements (which are not the same thing as Executive agreements at ALL) and treaties (which is a whole different level yet) are law?

By this absurd logic a President could negotiate literally anything with a foreign leader (wouldn't have to have an force of law on their end either I don't guess) and as long as there was no specifically enumerated restriction could agree us into literally anything unchecked.

I think you are taking a little of this and a bit of that and making an emotion based hash of all kinds of related issues and boiling it down to something in the specific here that doesn't even make any sense that cannot be supported by the law or precedent.

[Fred Sanders]

88. You are supporting the Republican position, a wrong position, I do not need to say anymore.

[TheKentuckian]

100. No, I'm not. You are being overwrought and will not even process information

You are being irrational and reactionary, Fred.

What Republican position is it that you think is being argued? You are inventing process that does not exist out of ignorance or blind rage and I assume missing my point entirely.

If you had an argument to my points then you'd likely have made it rather than these emotional responses.

Be well and when you calm down try to separate the emotions of the moment from the process and structure.

[Fred Sanders]

101. I am afraid you are the one not listening, ergo your rudeness - to your own President. My position is his position.

Also the NYT editorial board explains it for me, for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026353560

[FBaggins]

25. I need'nt "pretend"... that's exactly the case.

If Bush agreed to buy up all of Canada's oil production for 25 years... but didn't get Congress to approve the deal... Obama could undo it on his first day in office.

And that's often what happens. A President's first day in office usually coincides with a long list of executive actions that are undone.

The attempts to say HEY LOOK THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME

That's a straw man. I'm not saying that the parties are the same. My position is that neither action (nor many other similar conversations between representatives and foreign governments) was illegal... let alone treasonous.

Your next strawman further down is the nonsensical claim that "it's a clean slate every four years".

Nobody is pretending that the next president can't decide to continue with the agreement. In that vast majority of cases... that's exactly what happens. Most executive agreements are non-controversial.

[Rex]

26. Okay

Sorry but RIGHT NOW the 47 people committed treason against the POTUS. Spin it however you want to, Newt FBaggins.

You lost the moment you made that stupid argument.

[Telcontar]

57. WHOA! Step off the crazy train

NO ONE can commit treason against the POTUS, we are not some tin pot dictatorship with a cult of personality political system.

Talk about lost on a forum ostensibly dedicated to democracy.

[TheKentuckian]

63. No, they didn't because there is no such thing One can only commit treason against the United States

There is no treason against the President.

No shit they are willfully undermining his efforts, that isn't treason or even illegal just stupid, potentially dangerous, quite counter productive, and possibly irresponsibly insane.

[FBaggins]

19. You agree with the White House?

Then why do you sound so much like Newt in that article?

Kidding.

GOP has also:

Not sure why that's relevant to the current conversation.

Not legally treason, true, the letter was a public relations exercise for domestic consumption,

Of course that's what it was (which is why they released it rather than sent it to Iran). It's really no different than when Democrats convinced Carter to shift the SALT II talks from an executive agreement to a treaty negotiation. They just came up with a PR move that put in on the front page (and, of course, they aren't in the same party - so they're happy to try to take him down a notch).

it IS sedition.

Sorry... that's nonsense. Accurately describing the constitutional limits on executive power does not incite people to rebel against the government. They are correct that, absent Congressional action, the deal would have no binding authority over future administrations. Heck... if the deal requires legislation (as, for instance, a repeal of sanctions legislation?)... they don't have to do it. Whereas if they approved a treaty, they would have to change US law to accommodate it.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Obama is clear that lifting of sanctions, the ones imposed by Congress, will be repealed by Congress

[Rex]

23. I'm surprised they did not call for Obama's outting after his Cuba ovetures.

The GOP still seems to hold out for their crumbling Empire to somehow make a comeback...like the South... GEE, why didn't they write a letter to Cuba etc..

Not that playing politics is sedition. More like treason.

[FBaggins]

24. So?

If he was negotiating a treaty that a super-majority could support... that would be automatic.

It would give him a better bargaining position with Iran.

[onenote]

34. The Senate does not ratify treaties. They advise and consent on treaties.

The Constitution does not use the term "ratification" with respect to treaties. Rather it speaks in terms of advice and consent: Article II, Section 2 -- [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

The Senate website describes the "ratification' process, stating that "The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s)."

While it would be unusual to the say the least, a President could, after negotiating a treaty and having received 2/3 approval from the Senate, decide not to move forward to the final step of ratification.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

[FBaggins]

41. That's the same error that the 47 Republicans made

Fred, OTOH, can be forgiven, because that's been the political shorthand for the treaty process for decades.

[yourout]

4. Every major act of treason/sedition over the last 100 years was commited by a Republican.

Goes all the way back to the Business Plot that was outed by Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler.
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot|

Nixon twice.
[link:http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason|
Vietnam interference with LBJ's negotiations.
Watergate.

Reagan twice.
The hostage situation.
Iran/Contra

Cheney.
Plamegate.

Republicans in the Senate really raised the bar with two in one month.
Bibi and now the letter.

[Old and In the Way]

7. obviously, correct.

Party over country. When they fuck up, blame it on Democrats.

[grasswire]

85. you forgot the Selection of 2000 -- a de facto coup

....and didn't someone interfere with Clinton's Middle East Peace Accord?

[Old and In the Way]

5. Do I understand the point of equivalenance being made in your post?

On the one hand, our Congress was trying to send a signal to Nicaragua that we didn't want to overthrow left wing governments that were a bit closer to trying to establish democraticlc institutions versus supporting right wing, unaccountable dictatoships in South America? Because, if I support the Republican Letter to Iran, they are saying...."fuck Obama...we'll happily destroy any treaty and will bomb the fuck out of your country, assuming we "win" the next election.

[FBaggins]

11. Apparently not.

On the one hand, our Congress was trying to send a signal to Nicaragua

"Congress" acts by holding a vote. This was ten congressmen... acting in direct opposition to the nation's foreign policy. Actually asking Ortega to act to make it easier for them to undermine that foreign policy.

I'm not saying that their preferred foreign policy was wrong... just that it wasn't the deference to the chief executive that some here now argue is a requirement.

that we didn't want

And that's the point... isn't it? The current argument correctly points out that in the realm of foreign policy, "we" are represented by the President. The current claim is that it's treason to even make negotiations harder... let alone start your own negotiations.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Hard lesson here.

I get what you are saying....do not undermine the Executive Branch in terms of treaties. But it is damn hard when the Executive Branch is supporting anti-Democratic policies and you have to muzzle your response. But I totally get the point you are making.

[Fred Sanders]

22. This is NOT a treaty! Why are folks so obtuse?

[Old and In the Way]

27. Hy, Fred, I'm jusr acknowleding what the OP stated.

I give the respect of his point. I think there is a qualitative difference in the 2 postions, but I have to agree that the fundemental point of underminining the POTUS is not something that will serve us well.

[FBaggins]

30. That's the very problem.

We're talking about multi-state negotiations about nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

It should be a treaty. Executive agreements are for far less important things. When nuclear weapons are the subject, you want something that's binding on all parties. A ratified treaty has the force of law in the U.S. (superior to laws passed by Congress)

What is an Executive Agreement?

An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval. Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/executive-agreement-definition-examples.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. If the Iran negotiations are little more than a gentleman's agreement we don't need a letter from

47 RWers to tell us it's all but meaningless.

[FBaggins]

47. We don't...

... unless, of course, we want to end up with something meaningful/lasting instead.

[one_voice]

9. Well the first thing that strikes me is there...

is no mention of the President and how 'unimportant' he is. It also appears their letter doesn't work against the president and embarrass him, again he's not even mentioned.

Doesn't quite seem like apples n apples to me. But I will ponder it some more.

Indeed, Mr. Solarz said, the ''incredible irony'' about the whole incident is that the 10 authors were asked to send the letter by Alphonso Robello, whom the Congressman describes as a leader in one of the paramilitary groups now battling the Sandinista leadership in Managua.

''The whole thrust of the letter is to encourage the Government of Nicaragua to hold free and fair elections,'' the Brooklyn Democrat said. ''Presumably, that's what Newt Gingrich and the Reagan Administration is trying to do themselves.''

The 10 authors include Jim Wright of Texas, the majority leader; Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and other senior Democrats in the foreign policy field. The letter tells Mr. Ortega that it was written ''in a spirit of hopefulness and goodwill'' and voices regret that relations between Nicaragua and Washington are not better. Indeed, Mr. Solarz said, the ''incredible irony'' about the whole incident is that the 10 authors were asked to send the letter by Alphonso Robello, whom the Congressman describes as a leader in one of the paramilitary groups now battling the Sandinista leadership in Managua.

There is this:

The writers stress that they all oppose further money for rebel campaigns against the Sandinista Government. In a veiled reference to the Reagan Administration, the letter says that if the Sandinistas do hold genuine elections, those who are ''supporting violence'' against the Nicaraguan leaders would have ''far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.

Still no seeing it as the same thing. Maybe I am biased.

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Because "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong?

Is that the correct answer?

What is my prize?

[Rex]

14. No the OP is saying both parties are the same.

Which he will be saying the opposite of when it is convenient.

[Luminous Animal]

28. No, he is saying that this particular incident may have similarities to an incident initiated by Democrats

in 1984.

[Rex]

29. So both parties are the same, because they do the same thing. Like he said in his OP.

He is comparing apples to oranges and will be yelling at someone in a week or two for doing just the thing he is doing.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Really. You are actually trying to defend your extra-ordinary simplistic thinking.

Both parties supported the invasion of Afghanistan, does that make them the same?

[Rex]

80. Nice try at dodging for a buddy!

But it is HIS claim, he made it. I understand however that he cannot answer for himself.

[FBaggins]

31. No... he most certainly isn't.

Feel free to make your own points. Trying to make mine for me just highlights the weakness of your own position.

The parties are in no sense the same.

Neither example (nor half a dozen others that have been reported in the last few hours) represents "treason", nor "sedition"... nor were they illegal.

The respective positions in the various cases were by no means equivalent.

[Rex]

32. Thanks for completely going back on what you said! That didn't take long at all!

[FBaggins]

38. You've had a very active imagination today.

I've merely asked (shorthand to make it easier for you) "if that was treason... what's this?" - with the obvious point being that it isn't in any sense treasonous.

Nowhere did I say or imply that both parties are the same... or that "Democrats are just as bad".

[mythology]

42. Except you are misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against

that misrepresentation. Argue against what was actually said, not what you find easier to "debunk"

Saying that two groups committed two actions that are similar is not at all equal to saying that the two groups are the same.

Personally I don't think either is treason and I think the Logan Act is rather stupid and wouldn't hold up to judicial review.

[Rex]

81. What a shock you poo poo the Logan act.

NEXT.

[Luminous Animal]

86. A 1799 law under which no one has ever been prosecuted despite numerous

violations by both government representatives and private individuals. Though it has been invoked many times; Jane Fonda, Ross Perot, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson are few of many who have been accused of violating the Logan Act… it is a paper tiger… so useless that Ted Kennedy wanted to repeal it.

[Nye Bevan]

33. And Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in Syria in 2007, against Bush's wishes.

But that was in no way treason because hairsplitting.

[Luminous Animal]

37. And the Republicans characterized her actions as "treason". Our political intelligence

is on a second grade level.

[FBaggins]

40. Isn't it encouraging

to see the same arguments now being made by DU members?

I remember laughing at the republicans at the time... now I have to take solace in the fact that some of us haven't completely flipped.

[Major Hogwash]

36. " . . . the President should be negotiating a treaty that the Senate should vote on."

That is where you fucked up.

Ortega didn't have nuclear power facilities.
Iran does.

[FBaggins]

39. So let's see if I've got this straight

The president's constitutional authority varies depending on how serious the situation is... and somehow the fact that today's situation is more serious doesn't mean that it should be a treaty.

Have I read that right?

Of course... we also have to ignore that the Sandinistas were backed by the Russians... who had thousands of actual nuclear weapons.

[John Poet]

43. How is this productive to bring up now?

Seems you're trying to give a pass to the GOP 47.... or throw cold water on everyone's anger. Why would you want to do either? It seems like something a RedState mole would do

(not that you are, and yes, I'm a newcomer who doesn't know your history-- and that's how it seems to me)


I know the likelihood of anyone being prosecuted over this is miniscule.
What I would like to see is a public outcry for their resignations.


If the guys from 84 were wrong, it might be appropriate to say the same to them, if any were still around, but it would lack context.

Also, I'd like to see what documentation you have that the Soviets were "backing the Sandinistas", and how. Seems like that was a RightWing talking point from back then that didn't have much substance to it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. "throw cold water on everyone's anger"

Is it about facts or partisan lynch mobs? I don't know about you but I became a Progressive (and then an anarchist) to get away from emotional, fear driven mobs.

What I would like to see is a public outcry for their resignations.

Right now all we're seeing is people demanding prosecution. For what? Saying that without congressional agreement Obama can only has control over those things under his purview and the next president can disregard any agreement? That's actually true.

On the other hand, we're looking quite foolish for demanding elected officials be hung for 1) saying something that is factually correct and 2) siding with Iran of all places. God bless the Iranian people but the government is as despotic and loathsome as they come.

[FBaggins]

48. I appreciate your final sentence

I used to live there. At the time, the Iranian people were probably the most pro-American of any in the Middle East. Many probably still are 35+ years later.

But you're absolutely right about their government.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. I had the privilege of knowing an Iranian student while in college. She was one of the best people

a person could hope to meet.

[GetTheRightVote]

44. Obama/Admin should be talking with Congress as well...

They have their role to play in this situation and they are not being brought into the talks as expected in our form of government. Is this President Obama once again ignoring their role in our government ? It sure does look like it and yes I am a Democrat but I am very worried about a President using Executive orders like President Bush did and now the latest in doing so, President Obama. It harms our form of government and it has me deeply worried on how this will all end.

This is not a good way to govern our nation and both of these Presidents should be answering to 'We The People' for their actions taken against the nation and its' citizens. We need all 3 branches to be working together to make it work correctly and to serve all the people living here not one party over the other. It should be Country before party and I am concerned that the Country part of this thought is getting very lost.

[trumad]

50. Once again?

You do know that one party wants to bombs Iran back into the stone age.

Once again...please tell us more about that statement.

[Fred Sanders]

51. Your "concern" is duly noted and is surprisingly identical to the GOP traitors...interesting.

[B Calm]

52. This congress?

LOL

[onyourleft]

72. Once again...

...ignoring? Could you expound on that, please?

[bigtree]

53. to republicans and anyone else defending them against charges of treason by bringing up the Contras

...I say, go for it. It only highlights the irresponsible manner republicans conduct and regard U.S. foreign policy. You can dance around the question of treason from here to the election and republicans will still look like traitors for inviting Nuttenyahoo to undermine the president in our Congress, and for telling Iran's hardliners that our President is essentially irrelevant.

Have at it: Conspiring against our president with Nuttenyahoo, conspiring against our president with hardline Iranians, and justifying it by dredging up the past republican administration's policy regarding the Sandinistas. Hoo, boy! What's next? Producing Soviet memos from the head of the KGB to smear Ted Kennedy? Oh...wait.

[FBaggins]

54. So... that was one great big rhetorical...

"I can't... but they're bad anyway... that's all that matters"

?

[bigtree]

55. you're arguing against the political wind

...much like republicans are using the same reasoning to deflect the charge of treason, but political judgments don't normally come out of courtrooms, they happen in our living rooms and workplaces. The political judgment that's going to prevail is one of republican malfeasance and betrayal of our country and presidency.

Trying to deflect from that by using the old "I can't... but they're bad anyway... that's all that matters" deflection may well satisfy your curious attempt to bash Democrats responding to the Reagan-era blunders (and eventually, arms for hostages), yet does little more than remind folks just how little regard republicans have had for the welfare or prerogative of our nation over their own narrow and compromised interests.

Like I said, have at it defending today's republican traitors, arguing that we shouldn't call republicans out for their treason because, in your view, Democrats were wrong vs. the Reagan administration's support of the Contras. I think it's fucking great.

We have republicans today conspiring against our president with Nuttenyahoo, conspiring against our president with hardline Iranians, and you're justifying it by dredging up the Democratic Congress' response to Reagan's Nicaragua policy in '84. How politically dense can you get?

[TheKentuckian]

69. Who said those Democrats were in the wrong then? I think you are missing the point on purpose

because doing so best serves the matter at hand.

Neither is treason, neither is illegal, and each respective camp would argue they were in the right in the moment on substance.

Hell, I wish more Democrats would aggressively and consistently undermine TeaPubliKlan insanity. I'd argue that not only is it legal to do so but that generally it is a moral duty to do so and great harm almost always follows giving into even the concept of discretion with them.

Further, the whole idea is really, really goofy because no matter what the TeaPubliKlans do everything thing they can to not act in any such fashion and any peep of dissent is elevated to such a place in the court of public opinion and the media anyway so we can only lose in the exchange meaning we have nothing to gain at all by mouthing their dear leader style nonsense because we are too soft to do what is needed consistently.

[bigtree]

74. treason, not treason

...I don't think the public cares about technical definitions. What they see is a traitorous clan of republicans seeking to undermine the authority of the U.S. president and circumvent the democratic process. If anyone wants to call it 'treason' I'm not stepping forward to argue with them; much less use the Democrats' encouragement of the voting process in Nicaragua in '84 and their opposition to the Reagan administration's aid to the Contras to defend against those views. It's an unnecessary, and hardly an analogous comparison to what the Cotton gang did.

Damn right, I'm dodging the 'point' of this post. I don't have any interest at all in defending republicans against ANY charge. Moreover, I think making these comparisons only serves to remind the public just how manipulative and anti-democratic the republican party has been over the decades. So, like I said, have at it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. the Reagan Administration was carrying on an illegal war that was condemned by the International

Court of Justice in the Hague.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

The Obama Administration is negotiating or attempting to negotiate an multinational treaty to end a nuclear dispute with Iran.

To compare these two is truly a trip into bizarro world.

[randome]

58. Plus, that 'illegal war' wasn't public policy. Bizarro, indeed.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[FBaggins]

59. You can't possibly argue that we didn't have a public foreign policy related to Nicaragua

Can you?

[randome]

61. Didn't say that, did I?

But to try to reassure a foreign country about America's official policy doesn't make this analogous at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[FBaggins]

62. It's hard to tell what you're actually saying

The ten democrats who wrote the letter were directly opposed to America's official policy toward Nicaragua... and they asked Ortega for specific actions that would help undermine the opposing position and replace it with their own.

Which position was preferable has nothing to do with whether or not it's treason for congressmen on the other side of administration policy to write such a letter.

[FBaggins]

60. That's at least the closest to a valid position that I've seen so far.

But it isn't particularly persuasive. You can't make a constitutional argument that the chief executive has plenary authority to handle foreign policy unless it's a bad policy.

Yes, the Democrats of 1984 had the better foreign policy position... but that doesn't make actions which are "treason" when applied to good policy suddenly ok when applied to bad policy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. I have not used the word treason in regard to either case. But there is no implied or stated

Constitutional principle that the chief executive has unlimited authority to handle foreign policy or any other policy for that matter without regard to international norms and the will of Congress. There is no implied or stated principle that the Chief Executive has carte blanch approval to undeniably violate International Law and disregard the territorial integrity of other sovereign nations without even a pretense of legal justification or legitimacy.

There is no possibility that the 47 members of the U.S. Senate are going to be indicted for treason. But what they did undermines the ability of the United States of America to negotiate or execute multilateral agreements. It is at least dangerous and irresponsible. What the congressman of 1984 did was an appeal to conform to international norms and agreements - not to thwart the will of the International Community as the 47 did this time.

[salin]

67. Well written/expressed eom

[salin]

66. But, unless I am missing something...

in the 1984 situation - the House members were not trying to change / persuade the actions/behavior of the Ortega Government regarding contemporaneous on-going negotiations. It it is hard to see how their actions can be framed (outside of the Brietbart posting I saw on Twitter today) as trying to thwart the outcomes of the President's foreign policy. Unless encouraging behaviors of the state (allowing voting) was geared at changing the outlook of the US President toward the Ortega Government - which is ridiculous - as the beef was the alliance between Nicaragua and the USSR (and Cuba). If you could point out the similarity in how the letter in 1984 was a direct attempt to thwart the behavior of the foreign government in order to undermine US foreign policy - then I might follow your argument.

The 2015 letter reaches out to the foreign government with whom we are currently in multinational negotiations with an explicit attempt to thwart those negotiations by sowing distrust.

Both the situations and the intended action of the letter seem rather dissimilar to me.

[Rex]

84. .

"The 2015 letter reaches out to the foreign government with whom we are currently in multinational negotiations with an explicit attempt to thwart those negotiations by sowing distrust."

Good luck getting him or his buddies to acknowledge that. About a 100 people have already told him that more or less.

[salin]

87. I wrote this before DC wrote an upthread response

which said everything I could have - but better. Stopped trying at that point. Especially after I saw the Twitter #47traitors feed that included multiple Brietbart references to Ortega and dems. Realized what was up at that point.

[Orsino]

68. Because peace is better than war. Duh. n/t

[sabrina 1]

70. Reagan was conducting a secret & Illegal war against US law in Nicaragua. So why would a letter

from Congressional Dems wrt to that Illegal War have any similarity to LEGAL International negotiations being undermined by a group of political opponents for the purpose of supporting a Foreign Leader?

That 'armed conflict' you are talking about in Nicaragua was AGAINST US LAW.

There IS a difference.

[Rex]

83. That one is a huge defender of the nuke industry.

Never met a republican he could not defend, but 'just because' and all that. No dog in the hunt etc..

[BainsBane]

92. Edit.

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 04:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I wrote this post before I saw your last post where you once again demand I make you the focus, as though nothing else mattered. I would delete it, but another member has responded. This will simply fall under the the broken clock exemption.

The illegal nature of the War on Nicaragua, in violation of the Boland Amendment, makes all the difference in the world. The Reagan administration was in the process of overseeing the slaughter of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Central Americans at the time. They were not engaged in sensitive nuclear negotiations.

[FBaggins]

95. "All the difference in the world"

Would you point to that (or similar) phrasing in the Constitution please. I can't find it in my copy.

Congress has other avenues to address illegal activities, it doesn't make something that is unconstitutional in one case... suddenly acceptable.

Either Congress has the power to contact foreign powers in opposition to the President's foreign policy decisions... or they don't. I say that they do. The fact that Reagan was so far out of line while Obama is doing his best to get a valuable agreement in place (and that a broad spectrum of nations that don't always agree with us appear to be on board) perhaps makes the current letter a bad idea politically... but it's certainly not illegal (let alone treasonous).

[sabrina 1]

98. You forgot 'in opposition to the President's ILLEGAL foreign policy decisions'. All the difference

in the world, right there.

Reagan's illegal activities were against US Foreign Policies. The current negotiations are LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL and legal under International law.

For members of Congress to interfere in ongoing and very sensitive, legal negotiations, THAT is a threat to the National Security of this country.

The letter you went to so much trouble to find, was not a threat to our National Security.

[sabrina 1]

98. You forgot 'in opposition to the President's ILLEGAL foreign policy decisions'. All the difference

in the world, right there.

Reagan's illegal activities were against US Foreign Policies. The current negotiations are LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL and legal under International law.

For members of Congress to interfere in ongoing and very sensitive, legal negotiations, THAT is a threat to the National Security of this country.

The letter you went to so much trouble to find, was not a threat to our National Security.

[Hutzpa]

73. Dude, you should be ashamed of yourself

No need for me to jump on this as others have already said the two are not comparable.

[Rex]

82. Shame!? HA!

This one was working hard for the nuclear industry in another thread. I doubt there is a republican alive or dead he will not defend, but JUST BECAUSE...you know.

[blm]

78. You don't think illegal wars and drug running and clergy murders should be stopped

by any effort by congress?

IranContra WAS one of the biggest crimes against the Constitution in modern history.

[FBaggins]

89. I do in fact

Of course... the letter was written in 1984 before it was an illegal war (in fact a heavily Democratic congress was funding the conflict). IranContra was the two years following and Boland's clearest restriction was also after this occurred. Moreover... it isn't as though the war was the only aspect of US policy in Nicaragua.

Keep in mind... I've said multiple times above... I don't think they did anything wrong. It's just that by the faulty standard applied to the current case, the 1984 case was worse.

The closest to a valid rebuttal I've seen is mirrored on a few of the posts here at the bottom of the thread (including yours)... but they all boil down to claims that Congress can interfere with the President's foreign policy if that policy is really bad. That simply isn't a standard that carries enough weight.

[BainsBane]

90. Another difference

The Executive branch was waging an illegal war against Nicaragua, a war specifically prohibited by congress through the Boland Amendment.

The White House was not like today engaged in sensitive negotiations designed to prevent war, but it rather was recruiting and training Argentine death squads to carry out war against the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Nicaragua. That war was also spreading throughout Central America and led to mass graves throughout the region, the largest at El Mozote, El Salvador, and the near genocide of the Quiche Maya in Guatemala.

That's for starters.

[FBaggins]

91. That has been mentioned half a dozen times already

Nobody so far has come up with a legal argument for why a given congressional action is illegal in this case, but legal if some part of the administration's policy is itself arguably illegal (let alone who gets to make that judgment at the time). Nor have I seen any of them touch on the differences that you want to add to. There's merely the claim that this one trumps all else.

Does the current letter shift from treason to patriotism if we find out three years from now that the President is doing something illegal?

As I just pointed out above. Boland was actually a few different amendments over the space of a couple years. The one that was in force at that point limited how much could be spent there for military purposes... it did not (yet) outlaw all military involvement.

[BainsBane]

93. Excuse me

An illegal and clandestine war resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths vs. sensitive nuclear negotiations. I'm not a lawyer. Don't look to me for legal arguments, but the difference between peace negotiations and mass murder and genocide is just about everything in my book. That needs to be mentioned as many times as it takes until you get it.

I'm not crying for prosecution of the Republicans. I don't know the law about that either. But as a political and moral matter, there is no equivalence between the two actions. It is not simply our side vs. their side. It is peace vs. massacre and slaughter.

[FBaggins]

94. The morality of a position does not change the Constitution

I haven't tried to argue that Reagan's positions were worth defending while Obama's are not. That simply doesn't enter the constitutional question.

Congress does have the authority to remove presidents who pursue illegal wars (I know... far chance... but they do). They either do or do not have the authority to contact foreign governments and oppose presidential foreign policy (attempting to undermine that policy). The relative value of those policies isn't part of the equation. That goes for the other side of the coin as well. The President either has the authority to bind the US and future Presidents to an agreement based on his own inherent powers... or he doesn't (hint... he doesn't). The claim that he's fighting for world peace, full employment, and 200 year guaranteed lifespans without harming the environment... doesn't add to those powers.

[BainsBane]

96. That is something you will have to put to a constitutional lawyer

and what makes you think you'll find one here, I cannot begin to imagine.
I'm educated enough to know what I do not know.

[Chathamization]

97. I'd say the efforts in the senate to kill the talks by threatening new sanctions was worse

particularly since that actually threatened the talks (as opposed to this letter, which the Iranians seem to have laughed off) and was in violation of the agreed upon terms for the negotiation.

Of course, that originally had the support of people like Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, so no one said that attempt to undermine the talks was treason.